epa region 5 wetlands supplement: incorporating wetlands into watershed...

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement: Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning

March 2012

Photograph Sources All photographs are in the public domain. Clockwise starting in the upper left:

1. R. Hagerty. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. Wetland sunrise; water and reeds in foreground with plant growth in background. (Wisconsin)

2. R. Hagerty. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A close-up view of a whooping crane photographed at the International Crane Foundation in Baraboo, Wisconsin. Endangered species.

3. J. Hollingsworth and K. Hollingsworth. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hooded Merganser brood, Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan.

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Thirty-acre wetland restoration in Rice County, Minnesota.

5. D. Becker. 2010. U.S. Geological Survey. Floodwaters at Moorhead, Minnesota.

6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Three men using equipment to take core samples at Roxanna Marsh, Grand Calumet River, in Hammond, Indiana, as part of a wetland restoration effort and damage assessment process.

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Contents

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning iii

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Supplement? ........................................................................ 1

1.2 Why Include Wetlands in Watershed Planning? ........................................................... 2

1.2.1 Wetland Functions and Values ......................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Historical and Current Protection of Wetlands .................................................. 5

1.3 What’s Inside the Document? ...................................................................................... 7

2. Wetland Basics ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Regulatory Wetland Definition ..................................................................................... 9

2.2 Wetland Types ............................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Wetland Classification Systems ..................................................................................10

2.3.1 USFWS Classification System ........................................................................10

2.3.2 HGM Classification System and Approach ......................................................13

2.3.3 Distinctions Between the USFWS and HGM Classification Systems ...............13

2.3.4 NWIPlus ..........................................................................................................14

2.3.5 Summary ........................................................................................................14

3. Incorporating Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation into Watershed Management Plans ...............................................................................................................15

3.1 Returning Wetlands to the Landscape ........................................................................15

3.2 When to Include Wetlands in Watershed Plans ..........................................................16

3.3 Watershed Planning Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands ...........................19

3.3.1 Building Partnerships ......................................................................................19

3.3.2 Characterizing the Watershed .........................................................................20

3.3.3 Finalizing Goals and Identifying Solutions .......................................................24

3.4 Watershed Implementation Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands .................26

3.4.1 Developing an Implementation Plan ................................................................26

3.4.2 Using Reference Wetlands to Develop Site Plans and Measure Progress ......27

3.4.3 Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation Techniques ....................................28

3.4.4 Other Design Considerations for Wetland Projects .........................................29

3.4.5 Project-Specific Implementation Activities .......................................................35

3.5 Watershed Monitoring Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands .........................36

3.5.1 Wetland Project Site Monitoring ......................................................................37

3.5.2 Performance Standards ..................................................................................38

3.6 Watershed Long-term Management Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands ....40

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Contents

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning iv

4. Approaches for Assessing Wetlands in a Watershed Context ...............................................43

4.1 Michigan’s Landscape Level Wetland Functional Assessment Tool and Wetland Restoration Prioritization Model ..................................................................................44

4.1.1 Overview of Michigan’s Wetland Assessment Tool .........................................45

4.1.2 Pilot Test of the LLWFA in the Paw Paw River Watershed ..............................45

4.1.3 Clinton River Watershed LLWFA and Restoration Prioritization ......................52

4.1.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................59

4.2 Virginia’s Catalog of Known and Predicted Wetlands ..................................................60

4.2.1 Overview .........................................................................................................61

4.2.2 Pamunkey River Watershed ............................................................................61

4.2.3 Virginia Wetland Catalog Components ............................................................62

4.2.4 The Results .....................................................................................................64

4.2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................65

4.3 Assessing Wetland Restoration Potential for the Cuyahoga River Watershed (Ohio) .67

4.3.1 Watershed Description ....................................................................................67

4.3.2 Cuyahoga River Watershed Assessment Components ...................................67

4.3.3 The Results .....................................................................................................68

4.3.4 Summary ........................................................................................................69

4.4 Alternative Futures Analysis (AFA) of Farmington Bay Wetlands in the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem (Utah) .......................................................................................................71

4.4.1 Purpose and Overview ....................................................................................71

4.4.2 AFA Approach .................................................................................................72

4.4.3 Land Use Scenarios, Wetland System Templates, and Ecosystem Service Models ............................................................................................................72

4.4.4 Results ............................................................................................................73

4.4.5 Summary ........................................................................................................74

4.5 Conclusion: A Final Word ...........................................................................................77

References ...............................................................................................................................80

Appendices

Appendix A: Federal Programs and Acts Affecting Wetlands in the United States .................. A-1

Appendix B: Example Assessment Data and Sources ............................................................ B-1

Appendix C: Monitoring Methods ............................................................................................ C-1

Appendix D: Wetlands Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation Techniques ........................ D-1

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Exhibits

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning v

Exhibits Exhibit 1. Wetland Functions in the Watershed ............................................................................. 3

Exhibit 2. Wetland Values in the Watershed .................................................................................. 5

Exhibit 3. Wetland Type Descriptors ............................................................................................. 9

Exhibit 4a. Riverine Wetland System ............................................................................................ 11

Exhibit 4b. Lacustrine Wetland System ......................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 4c. Palustrine Wetland System .......................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 5. Hydrogeomorphic Classes of Wetlands Showing Dominant Water Sources, Hydrodynamics, and Examples of Subclasses .............................................................. 13

Exhibit 6. Watershed Planning Steps ............................................................................................ 17

Exhibit 7. Three–Tiered Wetland Assessment Framework ............................................................ 22

Exhibit 8. Guiding Principles for Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation .................................... 29

Exhibit 9. Wetland Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 10. Example Implementation Activities by Project Implementation Phase .......................... 35

Exhibit 11. Examples of Qualitative versus Quantitative Monitoring Mechanisms and Parameters and Monitoring Frequency Considerations ......................................... 37

Exhibit 12. Examples of Performance Standards Grouped by Wetland Function ........................... 39

Exhibit 13. LLWFA Uses ............................................................................................................... 45

Exhibit 14. GIS Spatial Data Collected and Integrated for the LLWFA ........................................... 47

Exhibit 15. Paw Paw River Watershed Wetland Extent ................................................................. 48

Exhibit 16. Paw Paw River Watershed Pre–Settlement Wetlands with High Significance for Stream Flow Maintenance ........................................................................................... 50

Exhibit 17. Paw Paw River Watershed 1998 Wetlands with High Significance for Stream Flow Maintenance ........................................................................................... 50

Exhibit 18. Paw Paw River Watershed Management Plan Implementation Tasks Associated with Wetlands ............................................................................................ 52

Exhibit 19. Clinton River Watershed Wetland Areas from Pre-Settlement to 2005 ........................ 53

Exhibit 20. Map Layers for Inclusion in Clinton River Watershed Wetland Assessment ................ 54

Exhibit 21. Site Selection Methodology in Clinton River AOC ........................................................ 55

Exhibit 22. Ecological Integrity Criteria and Social and Biological Criteria Used to Score Potential Wetland Restoration Sites in the Clinton River AOC ..................................... 55

Exhibit 23. Clinton River Watershed Restoration Prioritization Scoring ......................................... 58

Exhibit 24. Wetland Source and Priority Source Layers Used in the Virginia Wetland Catalog ...... 62

Exhibit 25: Pamunkey River Watershed Wetland Priorities ........................................................... 64

Exhibit 26: Pamunkey River Watershed Wetland Priorities by Parcel ............................................ 64

Exhibit 27. Two–Phase Model Description .................................................................................... 70

Exhibit 28a. Current and Future Scenarios under AFA of Farmington Bay Wetlands .................... 75

Exhibit 28b. Wetland Type Study Templates under AFA of Farmington Bay Wetlands.................. 76

Exhibit 28c. Ecosystem Service Models under AFA of Farmington Bay Wetlands ......................... 76

This page intentionally left blank

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Acronyms and Abbreviations

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in the Supplement. Refer back to this list

when you need clarification. AFA ....................................... Alternative Futures Analysis

AOC ...................................... Area of Concern

AVGWLF ............................... ArcView-enabled General Watershed Loading Function model

AWHA ................................... Avian Habitat Assessment model

CARL .................................... Conservation and Recreation Lands (dataset)

CFR ...................................... Code of Federal Regulations

CGI ....................................... Center for Geographic Information (Michigan)

CSOs .................................... combined sewer overflows

CWA ..................................... Clean Water Act

DEM ...................................... digital elevation model

DFIRM .................................. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA)

DLG ...................................... digital line graph

DOI DRG .............................. Department of the Interior, U.S. Digital Raster Graphic

FEMA .................................... Federal Emergency Management Agency (Homeland Security)

FQI ........................................ Floristic Quality Index

GIS ....................................... geographic information system

GLIN ..................................... Great Lakes Information Network

GSL ...................................... Great Salt Lake

HGM ..................................... hydrogeomorphic

IFMAPGGGGGGGGG....Integrated Forest, Monitoring, Assessment, and Prescription

IWWR ................................... Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration

LLWFA .................................. landscape-level wetland functional assessment

MDEQ ................................... Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MNFI ..................................... Michigan Natural Features Inventory

NAPP .................................... National Aerial Photographic Program (USGS)

NCSUGGGGGGGGGG..North Carolina State University

n.dGGGGGGGGGGG...no date

NHD ...................................... National Hydrography Dataset (USGS and EPA)

NHPCS ................................. Natural Heritage Priority Conservation Sites (Virginia)

NMFS ................................... National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA)

NOAA ................................... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC ...................................... National Research Council

NRCS ................................... Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

NWI ....................................... National Wetlands Inventory

NWIPlus ................................ National Wetlands Inventory, enhanced version

PCBs .................................... polychlorinated biphenyls

ppm ....................................... parts per million

PPRW ................................... Paw Paw River Watershed

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Acronyms and Abbreviations

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning viii

QC ........................................ Quality Control

RIBITS .................................. Regional Internet Bank Information Tracking System

SSO ...................................... Storm Sewer Overflows

SSURGO .............................. Soil Survey Geographic Database (NRCS)

SWCD ................................... Soil and Water Conservation Districts

SWMPC ................................ Southwest Michigan Planning Commission

USACE ................................. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA .................................... U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA ................................. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS ................................. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)

USGS ................................... U.S. Geological Survey (DOI)

VaNLA .................................. Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment

VDCR ................................... Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

VDEQ ................................... Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

VDOT .................................... Virginia Department of Transportation

VNHP .................................... Virginia Natural Heritage Program

VWRC ................................... Virginia Wetland Restoration Catalog

W–PAWF .............................. Watershed-based Preliminary Assessment of Wetland Functions

WWTP .................................. wastewater treatment plant

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Introduction

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning 1

A watershed is the area of land that contributes

runoff to or drains to a lake, river, stream, wetland,

estuary or bay (USEPA 2008a).

Wetlands are the link between land and water. They

are transition zones where the flow of water, the

cycling of nutrients, and the energy of the sun meet to

produce a unique ecosystem characterized by

hydrology, soils, and vegetation, making these areas

very important features of a watershed (USEPA 2004).

(See chapter 2 for a regulatory definition of wetlands.)

A watershed approach is an analytical process that

considers the abundance, locations, and conditions of

aquatic resources in a watershed. It further considers

how those attributes support landscape functions and

attainment of watershed goals (Sumner 2004). Rather

than identifying and protecting individual water

resources, a watershed approach involves developing

a framework for management of an area defined by

drainage rather than political or land ownership

boundaries (USEPA 2005).

Watershed plans are analytic frameworks for

protecting and restoring water quality and quantity

for various societal purposes. Ideally, they result from

implementation of the watershed approach. Plans

may focus on watersheds within political or land

ownership boundaries for strategic or practical

purposes.

1. Introduction

1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Supplement?

The purpose of this Supplement is to encourage

the inclusion of proactive wetland management

into watershed plans because wetlands play an

integral role in the healthy functioning of the

watershed. This Supplement promotes using a

watershed approach that not only protects

existing freshwater wetlands but also maximizes

opportunities to use restored, enhanced, and

created freshwater wetlands to address

watershed problems such as habitat loss,

hydrological alteration, and water quality

impairments. The primary audiences for the

Supplement are members and staff of watershed

organizations and local/state agencies.

This document is a Supplement to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)

Watershed Planning Handbook.1 It conveys

information on recently developed approaches

and tools for assessing wetland functions and

conditions, the results of which assist decision

makers in determining where in a watershed

existing and former wetlands can best be

restored or enhanced, or where wetlands can be

created to optimize their functions in support of

water quality and other watershed management

plan goals. The Supplement also discusses wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation

techniques and reviews the considerations involved in deciding how best to undertake a wetlands

project.

EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook and other scientific resources emphasize the importance

of the watershed as a management unit in which elements and processes operate over different

spatial and temporal scales. The literature also emphasizes the importance of planning and

implementing projects aimed at protecting or restoring water quality (or meeting similar goals)

within the context of the watershed.

1 USEPA, Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, EPA 841B08002 (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 2008).

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm



Wetland Functions versus Wetland Values

Wetland Functions

Wetland functions relate to a process or series

of processes (the physical, biological, chemical,

and geologic interactions) that take place

within a wetland. Major wetland functions

include those that change the water regime in

a watershed (hydrologic function), improve

water quality (biochemical function), and

provide habitat for plants and animals (food

web and habitat functions).

Wetland Values

Values are generally associated with goods and

services that society recognizes. Wetlands can

have ecological, economic, and social values. It

is important to note that not all environmental

processes are recognized or valued.

Sources: Novitzki et al. 1997; Sheldon et al. 2005.

[T]he integrity of aquatic ecosystems is tightly linked to the

watersheds of which they are part. There is a direct relationship

between land cover, key watershed processes, and the condition of

aquatic ecosystems. Healthy, functioning watersheds provide the

ecological infrastructure that anchors water quality restoration

efforts. Components of a healthy watershed can include intact and

functioning headwaters, wetlands, floodplains and riparian

corridors, instream habitat and biotic refugia, biological

communities, green infrastructure, natural disturbance regimes,

sediment transport, and hydrology expected for its location

(USEPA 2011c).

The Supplement assumes readers have some background in use of the watershed approach and in

watershed planning and have previously developed or are in the process of developing watershed

plans. If additional information is required in these areas, consult EPA’s Watershed Planning

Handbook and other similar federal, state, and local guides.

Including wetlands in a watershed management plan might entail costs beyond what a watershed

group has budgeted for targeting a specific watershed goal. Planners should keep in mind that the

goals and objectives they have established for their respective watersheds will dictate which

model elements suggested in this Supplement will be useful for inclusion in the organization’s

watershed plan. EPA encourages watershed groups to employ all recommended elements yet

recognize that time, effort, and budgetary constraints can limit the group’s implementation of all

model elements. These factors can also limit the considerations a group might give to detailed

planning, implementation, and monitoring tasks. The intent of this Supplement is to share

methodologies for considering and identifying wetland functions. It is also to encourage

restoration, enhancement, or creation of wetland functions to help watershed groups achieve their

respective watershed management plan goals

1.2 Why Include Wetlands in Watershed Planning?

1.2.1 Wetland Functions and Values

It is important to include wetlands in watershed

plans because of the important role they play in

ecosystem function and watershed dynamics.

Wetlands are a product of and have an influence

on watershed hydrology and water quality.

Wetlands contribute to healthy watersheds by

influencing important ecological processes. They

recycle nutrients, filter certain pollutants, play a

role in climatic processes by absorbing and

storing elements such as carbon and sulfur,

recharge groundwater, and provide energy

production and habitat for fish and wildlife.

Wetlands also provide goods and services that



Climate Change and Wetlands

Wetlands affect and may be significant factors in the global cycles of nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon by storing,

transforming, and releasing these elements into the atmosphere. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels and

clear cutting tropical forests have increased global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (e.g., water

vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides), which, in turn, have led to increased heat and climate change

(NCSU Water Quality Group, n.d.). For example, the world’s wetlands contain a substantial volume of peat. By

storing the carbon, the wetlands minimize the amount of carbon available to the atmosphere. Disruptions to the

peat deposits could contribute significantly to worldwide atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Soils are

the primary storage medium (sinks) for carbon on a global scale, and one-third to one-half of the world’s soils are

wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000).

Although wetlands may lessen the impact of climate change due to the role they play in the cycling of elemental

chemicals, wetland loss magnifies the impact of climate change.

have economic value. Some examples of the goods wetlands provide include habitat conducive

to food production, building products, and fresh water. Some examples of the services wetlands

provide include the reduction of peak flows and flood damage, water storage, protection of

erodible shorelines, water filtration and particulate removal, and recreational opportunities and

amenities. Finally, societies value wetlands for their historic and cultural/religious significance

(Schuyet and Brander 2004; USEPA 2005; Cappiella et al. 2006). Exhibit 1 provides more

complete descriptions of the three functions that are a focus of this Supplement—hydrology,

water quality, and habitat. Exhibit 2 provides examples of wetland values.

The functions performed by a wetland are dictated by environmental factors both within and

outside the wetland. Climate, for example, is a major factor affecting wetland function at the

largest geographic scale. Biochemical processes, such as the movement of water, sediment, and

nutrients, affect wetland functioning at the watershed scale (Bedford 1999). Environmental

interactions within the wetland itself, such as topographic location and underlying geology,

proximity to water source, and the direction of flow and strength of water movement, further

influence how the wetland functions (Sheldon et al. 2005).

Exhibit 1. Wetland Functions in the Watershed

Wetland

Function Description

Hydrology

Flood Protection

Wetlands trap and then slowly release rainwater, snowmelt, groundwater, and floodwater. Trees

and the roots of other plants slow the speed of runoff and distribute it over the floodplain. In urban

areas, wetlands can collect and counteract the increased runoff from buildings, pavement, and

other impervious surfaces (USEPA n.d.). The ability of wetlands to collect, store, and release

floodwater and to desynchronize flood flows is dependent on numerous factors, including

groundwater storage capacity, the size and shape of the wetland, slope, soil permeability, depth of

the water table, wetland condition, and landscape position (Wright et al. 2006). Riverine wetlands

are especially useful in storing and holding flows, including peak flows, which tend to produce flood

damage. A classic 1972 study on the hydrologic value of wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) demonstrated that if 3,400 hectares (approximately 8,401 acres) of wetlands

were removed from the Charles River Basin in Massachusetts, flood damages would increase by



Wetland

Function Description

$17 million (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). The loss of wetlands also has had significant impacts on

flood storage ability in the United States.

Hydrology

continued

Shoreline Erosion

Wetlands along coastlines (marine or freshwater) can slow and reduce storm surges, protecting

people and property from storm damage. For wetlands along the coast and along lakes, rivers, and

bays, plants and roots hold sand and soil in place, absorb the energy of waves, and slow currents,

resulting in reduced erosion (USEPA n.d.). When wetland vegetation is removed, increased erosion

can occur, resulting in loss of property (Wright et al. 2006).

Groundwater Recharge/Discharge

Some wetlands help to recharge and maintain groundwater levels, while other wetlands discharge

groundwater to streams, helping to maintain baseline flow and reduce flooding (Wright et al. 2006).

Landscape position and soil permeability have significant impacts on wetland and groundwater

interactions including flood mitigation. A 1997 study by Ewel estimated that the draining of 80

percent of a Florida Cypress swamp would result in a 45 percent loss of the groundwater in the area

(Wright et al. 2006). Wetlands can also improve groundwater quality in certain cases. For example,

wetlands have been shown to assimilate landfill leachate and reduce chlorinated compounds from a

nearby manufacturing site (Wright et al. 2006).

Water

Quality

Nonpoint source pollution is a principal threat to water quality. Wetlands help to remove, retain, or

transform pollutants and sediments from nonpoint sources by acting as natural filters, resulting in

discharges of higher quality water downstream. Wetlands can help improve water quality by

removing numerous types of pollutants or parameters, including nutrients, biochemical oxygen

demand, suspended solids, metals, and pathogens (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.).

The ability of wetlands to remove pollutants depends on numerous factors, including wetland size

and type, wetland condition, landscape position, water sources, types of pollutants, soil properties,

groundwater connection, and vegetation (Wright et al. 2006). In the wetland areas surrounding

Lake Erie, a 1999 study by Mitsch et al. estimated that restoring 25 percent of the original wetland

area would result in an increase in phosphorus reduction by 24 to 33 percent (USEPA 2008b).

Habitat

Wetlands provide important habitat for aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species (Wright et al. 2006).

Almost half of all federally listed endangered or threatened species depend directly or indirectly on

wetlands, and more than one-third of these species live only in wetlands (USEPA n.d.). Species,

including migratory species, depend on wetlands for a variety of functions, including feeding,

breeding, nesting, and raising their young (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.). For example, black

ducks use prairie potholes in the upper Midwest for nesting and spend winters foraging in the

coastal wetlands of the Chesapeake Bay (Wright et al. 2006). Wetlands can also function as wildlife

corridors (Wright et al. 2006). Wetlands are often more productive and provide more habitat than

would be expected for their size and have been equated with coral reefs and rainforests in terms of

productivity (USEPA 2010).



Exhibit 2. Wetland Values in the Watershed

Ecological Values

• Source of biodiversity

• Food, water, and shelter

for migrating and breeding

species

• Habitat for endangered or threatened species

• Hydrologic cycle contribution

• Role in climatic processes

Economic Values

• Commercial fishing and

shellfishing

• Commercial timber

• Habitat for animals used in

fur and pelt production

• Reduced flood damage

• Commercial production of

cranberries, wild rice, and

mint

• Medicines produced from

wetland plants

• Removal of pollutants and

water quality maintenance

In performing this filtering

function, wetlands save society a

great deal of money. A 1990

study showed that the Congaree

Bottomland Hardwood Swamp in

South Carolina removes a

quantity of pollutants that would

be equivalent to that removed

annually by a $5 million

wastewater treatment plant.

Social Values

• Scenic beauty

• Recreational opportunities

• Nature-based tourism

• Historical and heritage value

• Educational opportunities

Sources: Novitzki et al. 1997; Kusler 2004; and USEPA 2008b.

1.2.2 Historical and Current Protection of Wetlands

When the Europeans first arrived in the United States, an estimated 215 to 220 million acres of

wetlands existed. Less than 47 to 53 percent of that acreage remains today (Mitsch and Gosselink

2000; Dahl 2006 in Zedler 2006). Until the 1970s, physically altering or destroying wetlands was

a generally accepted practice. For example, wetlands have been drained for agricultural uses,

filled for urban development, impounded to supply water or to diminish flooding, and dredged

for marinas and ports. Wetlands have also been indirectly impacted, or their functions and

quality degraded, by agricultural and urban runoff, invasion by nonnative species, and

atmospheric deposition of harmful pollutants (IWWR 2003).

Recognizing the importance of wetlands, scientists in a 1992 National Research Council (NRC)

study called for the development of a national wetlands restoration strategy. Since then, federal

agencies and their partners (state and local governments, non–governmental organizations,

landowners, watershed groups, and others) have been working to achieve a net increase of

wetlands (IWWR 2003).

Although federal agencies have been making the effort to increase and improve the nation’s

wetlands, they are limited in their abilities to control local land use practices that cause indirect

wetland water quality impacts from activities such as natural erosion, road construction,

residential and commercial development, and agricultural and urban land uses. These impacts

result in the following conditions (Cappiella et al. 2006):

•••• Increased ponding and water level

fluctuations

•••• Constriction of downstream flow

•••• Pollutant accumulation in wetland

sediments

•••• Nutrient enrichment



The CWA Section 404 Program and Compensatory Mitigation

The program requires any person planning to discharge dredged or fill materials to waters of the United

States, which include wetlands, to obtain a permit. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or approved

state issues permits and develops the technical protocols and procedures for delineating and determining

impacts on wetlands.

EPA participates in the program by developing environmental guidelines for discharges and state assumption

of the program (USEPA 2005). EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) review and provide comments on permit applications. EPA has veto authority over

permit applications or permit conditions if it finds the potential impacts unacceptable.

When damages to wetlands are unavoidable, the Corps requires the permittee to provide compensatory

mitigation as a condition of issuing a permit (NRC 2001). In 2001, the NRC released a report recommending

that mitigation site selection be conducted on a watershed scale.

Although compensatory mitigation is beyond the scope of this document, it is important to note that

evaluations of the effectiveness of mitigation under the CWA section 404 program have helped to advance

the science of wetland restoration and the development of performance standards. As part of wetland

assessments, watershed groups often identify where in their respective watersheds wetland mitigation is

occurring and by what parties. There can be opportunities to collaborate in wetland restoration if mitigation

sites match up with those wetland areas the watershed group has deemed important.

•••• Decreased groundwater recharge

•••• Hydrologic drought in riparian wetlands

•••• Altered hydroperiods

•••• Sediment deposition

•••• Chloride inputs

•••• Increased abundance of invasive and

tolerant plant or aquatic species

•••• Decline in diversity of wetland plant and

animal communities

The Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permitting program has enabled the federal

government and states to minimize the physical alterations of wetlands through such actions as

dredging or filling. The CWA section 404 program is primarily administered by the USACE.

Under the program, the USACE or an approved state regulates activities impacting wetlands.

(See inset below for additional information on the CWA section 404 program.) However,

wetlands that are vulnerable to indirect impacts from urban, suburban, and agricultural runoff

and atmospheric deposition are not addressed through the federal/state permitting process and

must therefore be protected using other strategies, many of which need to be implemented

locally (e.g., zoning restrictions, subdivision ordinances, and other local development

regulations) (Cappiella et al. 2006). Alternative strategies are also needed for addressing impacts

to isolated wetlands, which are not regulated under state or local programs.

Programs that incentivize private landowners or nongovernmental organizations to undertake

voluntary actions play a role in protecting wetlands in addition to programs that fund the

restoration of wetlands or their acquisition, easements, leases, and regulation. CWA section 319,

Farm Bill, and Land and Water Conservation Fund programs are a few examples of programs

that fund the restoration of wetlands or their acquisition. Appendix A outlines the various

programs federal agencies implement relative to wetlands.



Watershed plans are effective tools for identifying and addressing water quality problems that

result from both point and nonpoint source problems. They also provide a means to protect and

restore other watershed attributes, such as the provision of wildlife habitat and other

environmental features such as wetlands. Continued declines in wetland abundance and function

will hamper efforts to restore watershed integrity. Subsequent chapters of this Supplement will

discuss some possible ways wetlands can be incorporated into the watershed planning process.

1.3 What’s Inside the Document?

The Supplement is presented as four chapters:

•••• Chapter 1 includes an overview of the purpose and intent of the document, background on

why it is valuable or important to include wetlands in watershed planning, and a brief

overview of the historical and current protection of wetlands.

•••• Chapter 2 provides the regulatory definition of wetlands, an overview of wetland types, and

a review of wetland classification schemes.

•••• Chapter 3 outlines the basic watershed planning steps and highlights the considerations that

watershed group gives by including wetlands in its watershed plan. The chapter also provides

general information on wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation techniques and

discusses the consideration one should offer in selecting options.

•••• Chapter 4 contains four case studies summarizing approaches for identifying existing and

former wetlands for restoration or enhancement, as well as possible sites for wetland creation

within a watershed context. The case studies also summarize approaches for prioritizing

amongst potential sites based on wetlands having the greatest restoration potential and

wetlands whose restored functions would address key watershed goals such as improved

hydrology, improved water quality, and increased habitat.

This page intentionally left blank.

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Wetland Basics

Incorporating Wetlands Into Watershed Planning 9

2. Wetland Basics

2.1 Regulatory Wetland Definition

Federal and state programs define the term wetlands differently, depending on the scope of their

management activities. This Supplement uses the regulatory definition of wetlands the USACE

and EPA use in relation to the CWA section 404 program:

[T]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or

groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and

that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar

areas. [40 CFR 230.3(5)]

2.2 Wetland Types

A useful way to think about wetland types is in terms of their dominant water source—

precipitation, groundwater, or surface water—as described in exhibit 3 (NCSU Water Quality

Group n.d.).

Exhibit 3. Wetland Type Descriptors

Precipitation-Dominated Wetlands

•••• Bogs obtain water primarily from precipitation and are characterized by sphagnum mosses dominating the

floor of the bog and creating waterlogged, acidic conditions with low nutrient levels (USEPA 2010). Bogs

prevent downstream flooding by absorbing precipitation. Because of the acidic, waterlogged conditions and

low nutrient levels, only species that are specifically adapted to such conditions are able to live in bogs,

resulting in many unique plant and animal species (USEPA 2010).

•••• Pocosins are shrub- and tree-dominated landscapes with little standing water located at a slightly higher

elevation than the surrounding landscape. Precipitation is the main water source, and although there is little

standing water, the soil is saturated much of the year, resulting in waterlogged, nutrient-poor, and acidic soils.

Fires typically occur in pocosins every 10 to 30 years during the spring or summer dry periods, and they play a

key role in maintaining a diverse tree and shrub population (USEPA 2010).

•••• Vernal Pools, Playas, Prairie Potholes, Wet Meadows, and Wet Prairies: Because of many similarities, these

wetland types are sometimes categorized as marshes; however, unlike marshes, they receive water

predominately from precipitation. Because these wetlands are isolated from surface waters, they do not

typically discharge to surface waters, but many recharge groundwater (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.).

Surface Water-Dominated Wetlands

•••• Marshes are generally defined as wetlands frequently or continually inundated by water. All types of marshes

receive most of their water from surface water; some are also fed by groundwater. Their vegetation is

characterized by emergent soft-stemmed plants adapted to saturated soil conditions. Marshes are home to an

abundance of plant and animal life due to high nutrient levels and neutral pH (USEPA 2010). They play an

important role in recharging groundwater supplies, moderating stream flow, and settling pollutants to

improve water quality (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.).



What is the NWI?

The National Wetlands Inventory is a

database of information used to identify the

status of wetlands across the United States.

The system contains wetland data in map and

digital formats (i.e., geographic information

systems, or GIS). Wetlands are classified in

the system according to the Cowardin system.

Source: USFWS 2010.

Surface Water-Dominated Wetlands (continued)

•••• Riparian Forested Wetlands receive water from rivers, streams, and lakes and are located across the United

States. Standing water is present in the winter and spring, with little to no standing water during the summer

and fall (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.). Riparian forested wetlands act as a sink for pollutants from nonpoint

sources (USEPA 2010). They also receive alluvial soil from floods, and as a result, they are very productive and

are important ecologically as they serve as habitat for plant and animal species (NCSU Water Quality Group

n.d.).

•••• Tidal Freshwater Marshes are fed by upstream surface waters. They are located far enough upstream of

estuaries to include freshwater but far enough downstream to be influenced by tides (NCSU Water Quality

Group n.d.). Nutrient levels are high due to precipitation and upstream runoff, resulting in a highly productive

system (USEPA 2010). Tidal freshwater marshes improve water quality through processes that remove

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.).

Groundwater-Dominated Wetlands

•••• Fens are very similar to bogs, the main distinction being that fens receive water from groundwater (NCSU

Water Quality Group n.d.). Fens are peat-forming wetlands; they have less acidic soil conditions and higher

nutrient levels than bogs. Fens are located in northern regions characterized by low temperatures and short

growing seasons (USEPA 2010). They can contribute to downstream waters and stabilize water tables by

recharging groundwater at local aquifers (NCSU Water Quality Group n.d.).

2.3 Wetland Classification Systems

2.3.1 USFWS Classification System

The concept or recognition of the importance of

wetland functions developed a foothold in the 1970s

and has evolved since then in both the scientific and

regulatory communities. Attention was first given to

the structural elements of wetlands, such as

vegetation. Wetlands were thought at the time to

function as important habitat for waterfowl and other

wildlife (Sheldon et al. 2005). In 1979, after extensive

field testing and review, the USFWS published the

wetland classification system in Classification of

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United

States (Cowardin et al. 1979). USFWS developed the Cowardin system to identify wetlands by

type and facilitate monitoring of wetland losses and gains and changes in wetland type. This

classification system has since become the standard system for classifying wetlands, and the

USFWS and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) use it to form the basis of their wetland

monitoring and mapping efforts (USGS n.d.). (See the sidebar for an explanation of the NWI.)

In the USFWS classification system, wetlands are defined by plants, soils, and frequency of

flooding. In addition, ecologically related areas of deep water that are not traditionally

considered wetlands are classified (Cowardin et al. 1979).

The USFWS classification identifies five major systems— marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine,

and palustrine (Cowardin et al. 1979). Because this Supplement focuses on freshwater coastal

and inland wetlands, only the riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine systems are further described.



Additional information on the USFWS classification system and the NWI can be found at

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/WetlandsLayer/index.html.

Exhibit 4a is a visual representation of the riverine system. The riverine system includes all

wetlands and deepwater habitats that are contained within a channel with two exceptions: (1)

wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, emergent mosses, or lichens and (2)

habitats that contain ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5 part per million (ppm). A channel is “an

open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains

moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water.”

Examples of riverine wetlands include freshwater rivers, streams, and immediately adjacent

wetlands (Gray et al. n.d.).

Exhibit 4a. Riverine Wetland System

Source: Cowardin et al. 1979.

Exhibit 4b is a visual representation of the lacustrine system. The lacustrine system includes

wetlands and deepwater habitats with all the following characteristics: (1) situated in a

topographic depression or dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents,

emergent mosses, or lichens with greater than 30 percent areal coverage; and (3) total area that

exceeds 20 acres. Similar wetland and deepwater habitats totaling less than 20 acres are also

included in the lacustrine system if an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up

all or part of the boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 6.6 feet

at low water. Lacustrine waters may be tidal or nontidal, but ocean-derived salinity is always less

than 0.5 ppm.



Exhibit 4b. Lacustrine Wetland System


Exhibit 4c is a visual representation of the palustrine system. The palustrine system includes all

nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens

and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below

0.5 ppm. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four

characteristics: (1) area is less than 20 acres; (2) active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline

features are lacking; (3) water depth at the deepest part of the basin is less than 6.6 feet at low

water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts is less than 0.5 ppm. Examples of palustrine

wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and wet meadows (Gray et al. n.d.).

Exhibit 4c. Palustrine Wetland System




2.3.2 HGM Classification System and Approach

An additional wetland classification system, called the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system was

later developed to support the USACE’s mission under the CWA section 404 program (Brinson

1993; Smith et al. 1995). The HGM system classifies wetlands according to geomorphic setting

(topographic location), water source and transport (surface flow, groundwater flow, and

precipitation), and hydrodynamics (direction and strength of water flow). It also establishes

procedures for classifying wetlands regionally. The HGM system consists of seven approved

wetland classes—riverine, depressional, slope, mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, estuarine

fringe, and lacustrine fringe—and also has subclasses and regional classes. Exhibit 5 shows the

dominant water source and hydrodynamics of each of the seven wetland classes along with

examples of subclasses. Additional information on the HGM system and approach is available at

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pdf and http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/

wetlands/pdfs/wrpde9.pdf.

Exhibit 5. Hydrogeomorphic Classes of Wetlands Showing Dominant Water Sources,

Hydrodynamics, and Examples of Subclasses

Hydrogeomorphic

Class (geomorphic setting)

Water Source

(Dominant)

Hydrodynamics

(Dominant)

Examples of Regional Subclasses

Eastern USA Western USA and

Alaska

Riverine Overbank flow from

channel

Unidirectional and

horizontal

Bottomland

hardwood forests

Riparian forested

wetlands

Depressional

Return flow from

groundwater and

interflow

Vertical Prairie pothole

marshes

California vernal

pools

Slope Return flow from

groundwater

Unidirectional,

horizontal

Fens Avalanche chutes

Mineral soil flats Precipitation Vertical Wet pine flatwoods Large playas

Organic soil flats Precipitation Vertical Peat bogs; portions

of Everglades

Peat bogs

Estuarine fringe Overbank flow from

estuary

Biodirectional,

horizontal

Chesapeake Bay

marshes

San Francisco Bay

Lacustrine fringe Overbank flow from

lake

Bidirectional,

horizontal

Great Lakes marshes Flathead Lake

marshes

Source: Adapted from Smith et al. 1995.

2.3.3 Distinctions Between the USFWS and HGM Classification Systems

Those involved in wetland planning and restoration efforts should understand that the USFWS

and HGM classification systems were developed for different purposes. The USFWS system was

designed for use in the NWI and for monitoring and mapping efforts, whereas the HGM

classification system was developed to assess wetland functions as part of the USACE’s

responsibilities under the CWA section 404 program. A limitation of the Cowardin system is that

it does not consider wetland function, and a limitation of the HGM system is that it does not

consider other physical properties of wetlands that affect how wetlands function, such as

vegetation, soil texture, and soil pH.



2.3.4 NWIPlus

To address the limitations of the Cowardin and HGM systems, researchers have designed

methods for assessing wetlands for regional or localized uses based on elements or concepts in

the Cowardin or HGM system, or both. In the 1990s, scientists in the northeast region of the U.S.

worked with the USFWS to enhance NWI data with HGM-type descriptors to describe a

wetland’s landscape position, landform, water flow path, and water body type (USFWS 2010).

The enhanced NWI, now called NWIPlus, provides a consistent means of using NWI data to

predict 11 wetland functions (USFWS 2010). This method looks at habitat type and also

identifies potential wetland functions such as (1) surface water detention, (2) stream flow

maintenance, (3) nutrient transformation, (4) sediment and particulate retention, (5) carbon

sequestration, (6) shoreline stabilization, (7) coastal storm surge detention, (8) provision of fish

and shellfish habitat, (9) provision of waterfowl and waterbird habitat, (10) provision of habitat

for other wildlife, and (11) conservation of biodiversity.

The USFWS calls the watershed assessment approach applying NWIPlus a Watershed-based

Preliminary Assessment of Wetland Functions (W–PAWF). This assessment method is

inventory-based and evaluates every mapped wetland on the basis of properties contained in the

NWIPlus database. The method is designed to reflect the potential of a wetland to provide a

function (USFWS 2010). Contact your state or local USFWS office to determine the availability

of state NWI or NWIPlus data.

2.3.5 Summary

Wetlands should be a key consideration of watershed planners. They play a role in the overall

health and functioning of a watershed. In turn, their restoration, enhancement, or creation can be

a strategic means to address water quality, water flow, and/or habitat issues. Incorporating

wetlands into a watershed plan requires the realization that wetland types can vary significantly

and that wetlands can be difficult to classify (e.g., exhibiting varying levels of the appropriate

hydrology, vegetation, and soils). Some areas might not appear to be a wetland to the untrained

eye. Some wetland types do not always meet all wetland classification criteria. For example, a

wetland whose vegetation has been removed or altered because of natural events or human

activities would not meet classification criteria for plants. Subsequent chapters in this

Supplement will detail effective ways to determine areas that were once wetlands or display the

characteristics conducive to facilitating wetland functions. This information will assist watershed

planners in determining possible areas in which to restore, enhance, or create wetlands to address

watershed plan goals related to water quality, hydrologic alteration, and habitat loss.

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Plans


3. Incorporating Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation into Watershed

Management Plans

3.1 Returning Wetlands to the Landscape

Given the loss and degradation of wetlands over the years and the subsequent realization of their

social, economic, and ecological values, considerable effort has gone into their restoration.

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an

ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is an

activity that initiates or accelerates ecosystem recovery with

respect to its health (functional processes), integrity (species

composition and community structure), and sustainability

(resistance to disturbance and resilience). The activity ensures

abiotic support from the physical environment, suitable flows and

exchanges of organisms and materials with the surrounding

landscape, and the reestablishment of cultural interactions upon

which the integrity of some ecosystems depends. (McIver and Starr

2001).

The concepts of wetland preservation, restoration, enhancement, and creation are embedded in

the more broadly defined term ecological restoration. Preservation is the act of protecting and

maintaining existing wetlands or protecting a wetland through implementation of appropriate

legal mechanisms. When characterizing a watershed, one of the initial steps is to identify the

location of relatively intact, unimpacted natural areas (i.e., areas with high ecological integrity),

including wetlands. Watershed planners typically target those areas for conservation/protection.

It is important to identify former wetland sites or degraded areas near those natural areas that

could possibly be restored or enhanced (Weber and Bulluck 2010; Sumner 2011; and others).

Wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation projects have a greater likelihood of success if

they are adjacent to or part of an already functioning wetland (IWWR 2003). Although

preservation is not the focus of this Supplement, it is important to understand the value of

preservation activities.

For the purposes of this Supplement, the terms restoration, enhancement, and creation are

defined as follows:

•••• Restoration is the reestablishment of a wetland in an area that was formerly a

natural wetland or the rehabilitation of historic functions to a degraded wetland.

•••• Enhancement is increasing one or more of the functions performed by an

existing wetland beyond what currently exist in the wetland.

•••• Creation means establishing a wetland where one did not exist previously. Note that for

the purposes of this Supplement, creation does not include constructed wetlands to treat

effluent.



Wetland restoration is sometimes confused with wetland enhancement because both may involve

working in existing, degraded wetlands (IWWR 2003). Restoration is both (1) reestablishing lost

wetlands (e.g., areas that were historically wetland but are not wetlands today) and (2)

rehabilitating degraded wetlands. For example, in a restoration project, one might remove

drainage tiles from an agricultural field and plant vegetation in an effort to reestablish a wetland

area that once existed there. Conversely, wetland enhancement projects can result in reducing

one function of the wetland to enhance another function. In an enhancement project, one might

alter existing wetland habitat elements (e.g., water depth and vegetation) to increase the

likelihood of endangered species being established. Another example of enhancement might be

to modify the hydrology by increasing the amount of stored water in a wetland in order to

increase aquatic habitat for fish; however, this might decrease the ability of the wetland to hold

floodwaters (IWWR 2003). Regardless, when wetland enhancement is undertaken, the project

goals should include minimizing any decrease in existing wetland functions.

Wetland creation occurs in areas that were not previously wetland however conditions or

characteristics exist that may still produce and sustain a wetland. Creating wetlands is more

difficult than restoring or enhancing them. Wetland creation requires consideration of a variety

of factors. The outcome of most wetland creation projects is difficult to predict, and created

wetlands often have limited functions compared to natural wetlands (IWWR 2003). Some of the

baseline conditions conducive to wetland formation, such as hydric soils, are not always present

in the landscape of creation projects. Therefore, creation does not typically result in the

establishment of sustainable wetlands or wetlands that successfully provide beneficial ecological

functions.

3.2 When to Include Wetlands in Watershed Plans

As outlined in EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook, the development of watershed plans has

four basic steps, each with a series of substeps: (1) planning, (2) implementation, (3) monitoring,

and (4) long-term management. (See exhibit 6 next page.) EPA has identified the nine substeps

highlighted in exhibit 6 as critical elements that should be addressed in watershed plans where

water quality improvements are the aim. In fact, EPA requires the nine elements to be addressed

in watershed plans funded with incremental CWA section 319 funds and strongly recommends

that they be included in all other watershed plans intended to address water quality impairments.

Including wetlands in watershed plans requires that they be considered throughout each phase of

the watershed planning process. As noted in the Handbook, watershed planning is an iterative

process and so, too, is the process for including wetlands. An important aspect of the planning

process is that it is adaptive. (See inset below.)



Exhibit 6. Watershed Planning Steps

Note: The nine items highlighted in orange are the elements EPA requires to be addressed in watershed plans

funded with incremental CWA section 319 dollars.

Planning

1. Build partnerships

• Identify issues of concern

• Set preliminary goals

• Develop indicators

• Conduct public outreach

2. Characterize the watershed

• Gather existing data and create a watershed inventory

• Identify data gaps and collect additional data if needed

• Analyze data

• Identify causes and sources of pollution that need

to be controlled

• Estimate pollutant loads

3. Finalize goals and identify solutions

• Set overall goals and management objectives

• Develop indicators/targets

• Determine load reductions needed

• Identify critical areas

• Develop management measures to achieve goals

Implementation

4. Design implementation program

• Develop an implementation schedule

• Develop interim milestones to track implementation or management

measures

• Develop criteria to measure progress towards meeting watershed goals

• Develop monitoring component

• Develop information/education component

• Develop evaluation process

• Identify technical and financial assistance needed to implement plan

• Assign responsibility for reviewing and revising the plan

Monitoring

5. Implement watershed plan

Adaptive Management

“Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the

face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood.

Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or

operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of

natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process,

but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but

rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet

environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among

stakeholders.”

— B.K. Williams, et al. 2009 in Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide

Characterization and

Analysis Tools

• GIS

• Statistical packages

• Monitoring

• Load calculations

• Model selection tools

• Models

• Databases

Watershed Plan

Document



• Implement management strategies

• Conduct monitoring

• Conduct information/education activities

Long Term Management

6. Measure progress and make adjustments

• Review and evaluate information

• Share results

• Prepare annual work plans

• Report back to stakeholders and others

• Make adjustments to program

Source: USEPA 2008a.



Possible Partners to Help Incorporate

Wetlands into Watershed Management Plans

Identify representatives with wetland

expertise and include them in all phases of plan

development and implementation.

• Landowners

• County or regional representatives

• Local municipal representatives

• State and federal agency representatives

• Tribal representatives

• Faculty and students at universities,

colleges, and other schools

• Business and industry representatives

• Members of citizen groups

• Representatives of community service

organizations

• Religious organization representatives

• Staff and members of environmental and

conservation groups

• Soil and water conservation district

representatives

• Representatives of irrigation districts

Source: USEPA 2008a.

3.3 Watershed Planning Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands

Some of the primary considerations involved in including wetlands in the watershed planning

process are discussed below.

3.3.1 Building Partnerships

Identify Key Stakeholders

Working with and soliciting input from key stakeholders is a critical aspect of any watershed

planning activity, including planning for a

wetland-specific project. Stakeholders are those

who make and implement decisions, those who

are affected by the decisions made, and those who

have the ability to assist or impede

implementation of the decisions. (See sidebar for

a list of possible partners.) It is essential that all

of these categories of potential stakeholders, not

just those that volunteer to participate, are

identified and included. Key stakeholders also

include those that can contribute resources and

assistance to the watershed planning effort and

those that work on similar programs that can be

integrated into a larger effort (USEPA 2008a).

The role that stakeholders play will vary

depending on their affiliate organizations.

Stakeholders include those that (USEPA 2008a):

•••• Will be responsible for implementing the

watershed plan

•••• Will be affected by implementation of the

plan

•••• Can provide information on the issues and

concerns in the watershed

•••• Have knowledge of existing programs or

plans that a watershed group might want to integrate into its plan

•••• Can provide technical and financial assistance in implementing and developing the plan

Consult chapter 3 of EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook if you want to learn more about the

kinds of stakeholders that should be involved in developing and implementing your watershed

plan.



Identify Issues of Concern and Set Preliminary Goals

It is important to define the scope of your efforts when developing a watershed plan. Scope

applies to the boundaries of your effort, which can be defined in terms of geographic area or

other parameters. At this time you would also identify issues of concern in the watershed and

begin conceptually mapping them to hone in on specific research/plan objectives. An issue of

concern with respect to wetlands might be that they and their functions have been lost or

degraded, which in turn has impaired water quality, altered hydrology, and reduced wildlife and

aquatic habitat in the watershed.

To begin assessing these concerns, you would begin posing questions about such topics as the

presence of former and existing wetlands in your watershed, the functions they play (or played)

at various geographic scales in the watershed, the degree to which the functions are impeded,

how the limited functions are impacting the larger water system, the stressors that are inhibiting

or degrading the identified wetland function, and the sources of the stressors.

As you answer questions like those above for the watershed as a whole, the geographic extent of

your watershed plan will begin to take shape and you will be in a position to begin developing

preliminary watershed plan goals. Initially, your goals will be broad, such as “protect, restore, or

enhance former and existing riparian wetlands for their abilities to filter runoff from adjacent

land uses, thereby helping eliminate downstream water quality impairments of nutrients and

sediment.” You might have similar goals for other wetland functions as they relate to problems

you are seeing in the larger watershed. As you continue to move through the planning process,

you will refine the goals, develop indicators to measure environmental conditions, and establish

objectives/targets to achieve. Consult chapters 4 through 9 of EPA’s Watershed Planning

Handbook for a detailed discussion of these topics.

3.3.2 Characterizing the Watershed

Inventory and Assess the Watershed

One of the first steps in characterizing the watershed

is to gather and assess existing data and create a

watershed inventory. This inventory should include

wetland components. Watershed-level characteristics

(e.g., hydrology, soils, and vegetation; see sidebar)

can be used to define and classify wetlands. This

information will assist watershed groups in

determining which former or existing wetlands could

be restored or enhanced for successful and sustainable

integration into the watershed ecosystem (IWWR

2003).

One source of information for beginning the inventory and assessment process is local citizens.

Citizens who have lived in the watershed a long time usually have a strong understanding of the

natural resources of the area and can provide very valuable insights. Maps are also useful

resources for characterizing watersheds and wetlands. For example, soil maps can aid in

identifying current or historic wetland soils, and biological reports, if available from local

Watershed-Level Characteristics to Define

and Classify Wetlands

•••• Land uses

•••• Topography (i.e., elevation, aspect,

and slope)

•••• Climate (i.e., precipitation patterns

and temperature)

•••• Soil types

•••• Groundwater

•••• Surface waters

•••• Floodplains

•••• Vegetation communities

Sources: IWWR 2003; UWM 2005.



agencies, can facilitate the determination of local vegetation (IWWR 2003). Aerial photography

and topography can provide information on water sources, drainage, and surface runoff (and the

location of former wetlands). Floodplain maps provide information on the locations and

elevations of flood-prone areas. Sources for most of these resources are identified in sections

5.3.5 and 5.8.1 of EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook. These and other sources are also

provided in the case studies presented in chapter 4 of this Supplement. Sources for aerial

photographs include the following:

•••• http://nationalmap.gov/gio/viewonline.html

•••• http://www.globexplorer.com/products/imageconnect-mapinfo.shtml

Use an Internet browser to search for state or local aerial photographs for additional and more

specific resources.

When available, digital NWI maps from the USFWS can be extremely helpful in identifying

where in the watershed current wetlands are located. This information can be used to determine

the watershed features that have been amenable to wetland formation (e.g., the presence of

hydric soils) in the past. This information can also provide models for where new wetlands

might best be located, both to replicate the landscape positions of existing wetlands and to

provide for consolidation of wetland resources where and when practicable. In addition, high-

quality wetlands that become targets for protection can be identified through this process. It

should be noted that although NWI data might be the best source for locating wetlands on the

landscape, the data, depending on the year used, might not necessarily reflect current conditions

on the ground. Planners often use NWI as an initial layer and then evaluate aerial photographs or

other sources to make initial decisions about current and former wetland locations.

It should be recognized that both the availability and quality of data need to be considered when

determining which data sources to use. For example, a county might have a fairly advanced

geographic information system (GIS) data source for the watershed-level characteristics listed on

the previous page, except on vegetation communities, which might be too coarse to be useful at

the watershed level. This and similar limitations to GIS datasets need to be considered. It is

important to know and understand the origin, geographic coverage, and associated metadata of

any data used. The metadata answer questions related to data generation (i.e., who, what, why,

when, where, and how).

The purpose of this Supplement is to provide informal guidance on ways to incorporate wetland

assessment activities and results into watershed plans. There might be some rare instances where

a watershed group has already identified a project site prior to completion of a watershed plan. In

such cases, EPA advises groups to collect watershed-level information regardless. The broader

assessment could result in identifying another site with greater restoration potential. In addition,

even if the group decides to proceed with the originally selected project site, the additional

information will meet the larger goal of incorporating wetlands into watershed plans and provide

greater insight into planning, constructing, and managing wetlands to meet watershed

improvement goals.



Some potential sources for obtaining watershed-level characteristics specific to wetland

resources are state natural resource or wetland protection agencies, local planning agencies,

water quality control districts, water management districts, and flood control districts, as well as

national agencies such as USGS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Soil and Water Conservation Districts

(SWCDs). Further examples of assessment data and sources are provided in appendix B and in

the case studies in chapter 4.

Data collected can be quantitative and qualitative. Examples of quantitative data might include

water chemistry, extent of hydric soils, soil permeability, soil organic carbon levels, and

elevation data. Examples of qualitative data might include visual or expert opinions on site

topography, erosion and drainage patterns, major vegetation, presence of human structures, and

adjacent land uses (IWWR 2003). The type and level of data collected will influence the

assessment techniques used. Some inquiries can be performed at the desktop, while others might

require actual field observations; in some cases, both will be needed.

It should be clear that environmental assessment activities occur at multiple spatial scales and

that they vary in complexity. For example, desktop assessments tend to be less complex than

site-specific assessments. Typically, the larger the spatial scale, the coarser the assessment

performed and vice versa. This continuum is illustrated in exhibit 7, which briefly outlines

EPA’s three-tiered wetland assessment framework. The level of assessment performed is dictated

by the degree of precision needed and the user’s monitoring budget.

Exhibit 7. Three–Tiered Wetland Assessment Framework

Level 1: Landscape assessment

Purpose: To evaluate indicators for a landscape view of watershed and wetland condition. Level 1 wetland

assessment methods do not involve a site visit and use the types of information that can be reviewed in the office

at a desk, such as maps, soil inventories, and remote sensing-generated data such as GIS models, wetland

inventories, and land use datasets.

Level 2: Rapid wetland assessment

Purpose: To evaluate the general condition of individual wetlands using a relatively simple indicator. Level 2

assessments generally involve a short site visit to the wetland and are based on the identification of stressors (e.g.,

intensive surrounding land uses, drainage, ditching, vegetation removal, and substrate disturbance) and/or

evaluation of the overall ecologic condition of the wetland through rating the relative intactness of habitat,

hydrology, functions, and other significant wetland features.

Level 3: Intensive site assessment

Purpose: To provide quantitative data on wetland ecological condition. The data can be used to refine rapid

assessment methods and diagnose causes of wetland degradation. Level 3 assessments usually involve long

periods spent at a site conducting detailed biological and/or biogeochemical surveys that involve the collection of

quantitative data relative to the floral, faunal, physical, and/or chemical characteristics of a wetland.

(See appendix C and the case studies presented in chapter 4 for examples of monitoring methods.)

Source: USEPA 2011d.



Wetland assessment is an effort to evaluate the functions of a wetland or assignment of values to

the functions of wetlands to determine their health. Assessments can be performed to evaluate an

individual wetland or conducted to establish indicators of condition in multiple wetlands.

Wetland assessment is accomplished through monitoring. Monitoring can be referred to as the

systematic observation and recording of current and changing conditions, while assessment is the

use of those data to evaluate or appraise wetlands to support decision-making and planning

processes (USEPA 2011d). As such, wetland monitoring needs to occur in the planning process.

This Supplement, however, focuses more on monitoring as a component in later stages of

incorporating wetlands into the watershed planning process. It is discussed later in this

Supplement as a means to measure the progress of specific wetland restoration, enhancement,

and creation projects.

Landscape-level evaluations of the wetlands (and former wetlands) in a watershed, such as

determining the distribution and abundance of wetlands types and characterizing the surrounding

land uses, are best carried out using level 1 assessment tools (see exhibit 7 above). These large-

scale assessments lend themselves to the use of GIS databases, aerial photography, maps, and

other types of information that are best accessed in an office setting. Once the population of

former and existing watershed wetlands has been identified using level 1 tools, further

assessment of former and existing wetlands can be carried out using level 2 assessments.

Because level 2 tools are rapid, they make it possible for investigators to visit and assess a large

number of wetlands in a relatively short period. The information from the level 2 assessments

can be used as a basis for establishing the ecological condition of wetlands in the watershed and

for determining which wetlands might require more intensive data-gathering efforts.

Level 3 monitoring is used when the most precise information on wetland condition or functions

is needed. Generally, this level of precision is needed for regulatory determinations of wetland

quality. This precision is also important in watershed wetland studies where accurate ambient

condition is the ultimate data result of the survey. Level 2 tools involve subjectivity and best

professional judgment (even when investigators have been principled in following the protocols),

and two evaluators might put the wetland in the same condition class but have different scores.

Conversely, level 3 tools are objective and typically yield the same quantitative results for each

data collector. Level 3 tools are able to break the range of ecological condition into smaller and

more accurate partitions. Sometimes these partition differences are unimportant, but at other

times, they can make the difference between allowing and denying a wetland impact

(Micacchion 2012).

Example Showing Distinctions Between

Use of Level 2 and 3 Tools

A level 2 tool might place a wetland proposed for impacts

somewhere between good and excellent ecological

condition. In some states, like Ohio, a wetland in good

ecological condition is allowed to be impacted, whereas

one rated in excellent condition is protected. In this

scenario, one would want to use the level 3 tool to be

precise because there is a significant outcome attached to

the assessment results. Source: Micacchion 2012.



Water and Pollution Roll Downhill

A common thread in urbanizing

watersheds is that development in the

headwater areas tends to coincide with

the loss of headwater streams and

wetlands. Increased development is

associated with increased

imperviousness of the watershed due to

the establishment of large areas of

concrete and asphalt surfaces and

rooftops. These hard surfaces do not

absorb water. Thus, all stormwater

immediately makes its way downhill.

The increases in stormwater pass

through the remaining streams and

wetlands at ever increasing volumes and

velocities. The result is a degradation of

streams and wetlands at lower

elevations; they become unable to

assimilate the increases in water

quantity, energy, sediment, and

pollutants. Some of the best watershed

restoration projects in urban areas can be achieved in the headwaters.

Source: Micacchion 2011.

Example monitoring methods appropriate at various scales along the planning continuum (e.g.,

levels 1 to 3 in EPA’s Wetlands Monitoring Framework) are listed in appendix C. The case

studies also demonstrate the use of level 1 and 2 methods when assessing wetlands as

components of a watershed plan—as resources to be preserved, restored, enhanced, or created

and as strategies to address problems in the larger watershed.

3.3.3 Finalizing Goals and Identifying Solutions

After the watershed is fully characterized, planning moves into a new stage: finalize goals and

identify solutions. Although planning generally remains at the watershed level, it also overlaps

somewhat with planning for specific projects to the extent that projects are identified as

management strategies to achieve watershed plan goals. For example, a watershed plan goal

might be to increase flood storage by protecting, restoring, and enhancing riparian wetlands.

Achieving this goal means identifying where projects might occur and which have the greater

likelihood of success. Consult chapters 8 to 11 of EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook to

explore the following topics: analyzing data to characterize the watershed and pollutant sources,

estimating pollutant loads, setting goals and identifying pollutant loads, identifying possible

management strategies, and evaluating options and

selecting final management strategies. Because the

Handbook is geared toward improving water quality, it

includes presentations on estimating pollutant load.

Analyses appropriate to assessing hydrologic or habitat

concerns could just as easily be made during this phase

of planning if they were more in line with a watershed

group’s planning goals.

Wetland Project Goals

Similar to the goals established for watersheds, goals for

wetland projects should be specific and well-

documented. The goals should reflect the desired results

and motivations for the project. For example, a wetland

goal might be to restore native plant species to improve

wetland habitat for an endangered migratory bird

species. Wetland-specific project goals should also be

linked back to the overall goals for the watershed. For

example, watershed goals might be to reduce flooding

and improve water quality. As such, a wetland project

goal might be to increase wetland acreage in key areas

of the watershed to protect against downstream flooding

(Cappiella et al. 2006) and to select a mix of native

wetland plants that will meet the habitat needs of the

endangered migratory bird species and maximize the uptake of waterborne pollutants. Another

wetland project goal might be the restoration or enhancement of former and existing wetlands

near degraded waterways to enable them to filter runoff from upland developments that cause

water quality impairments.



Although wetlands provide multiple functions within a watershed, it might not be possible to

design a single project that addresses all watershed goals. One way to begin a project with a

wetland focus is to identify existing and former wetland functions in the watershed and then

prioritize those desired in relation to watershed goals. As discussed earlier, the important role

wetlands play in improving water quality, addressing hydrologic problems, and creating habitat

should be worked into the watershed planning process. Some examples of the important roles

wetlands play follow:

•••• Streams in watersheds with more wetland area are less prone to flooding and have better

water quality and more stable levels of stream flow.

•••• Wetlands adjacent to large streams can store stormwater when the channel overflows and

slowly release the water to the channel after the peak flows have subsided. The vegetation of

riparian wetlands works to slow down flow rates, which contributes to stream bank stability

by reducing the pressures on the channels during storm events.

•••• This reduction of water velocity also causes sediments and the chemicals adhered to the

sediments to fall out of the water column thereby improving water quality.

•••• The composition of wetlands promotes denitrification, chemical precipitation, and other

reactions that result in chemicals being removed from water. These attributes are important in

urban, semi-urban, and rural landscapes.

•••• Although headwater streams receive small overflows, the surrounding wetlands in these

headwater systems contribute to flood control by retaining surface water runoff, which might

never enter a stream. Headwater wetland vegetation slows down flows, softens the

watershed, and captures and recycles pollutants that otherwise would enter the local stream

system.

•••• If the goal of a watershed group is to provide areas for recreation, then a wetland project that

increases habitat for migratory bird species, thus improving bird watching in the area, could

be a potential wetland restoration project. Such a project would not only improve the wetland

function of providing habitat for migratory bird species but also would meet the watershed

group’s goal of providing areas for recreation (i.e., bird watching).

A project that works to achieve multiple watershed goals and wetland functional goals (i.e.,

improve priority wetland functions) should be prioritized over a project that just works to

achieve one or the other. This prioritization will aid in decision-making when project

circumstances, whether ecological or nonecological, are limiting (UWM 2005).

During this phase of watershed planning, a watershed group should consider and incorporate

restoration, enhancement, and creation of wetlands as a component of the strategy for addressing

the overall goals and management objectives for the watershed. Taking this step requires that the

watershed group understand the condition and extent of wetlands in the watershed and the

functions served or that could be served. Other strategies for addressing watershed problems,

beyond the restoration, enhancement, or creation of wetlands, should be considered at this time

as well.



Factors to consider when choosing whether to proceed with incorporating wetlands (as well as

other projects) during the planning stage of a watershed project include the following (Cappiella

et al. 2006):

•••• Accomplishment of watershed goals

•••• Watershed functions provided

•••• Total cost

•••• Cost per unit (e.g., acres)

•••• Permitting and approval responsibilities

•••• Short- and long-term maintenance responsibilities

•••• Integration with other work going on in the watershed

•••• Community acceptance

•••• Partnership opportunities

•••• Availability of funding to implement project

•••• Public visibility

•••• Potential for success

Funding for projects is inevitably a major consideration for all stakeholders involved in

implementing projects to achieve the goals of watershed plans. Consult section 12.7 and

appendix 13 of EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook for information on estimating financial

and technical assistance needed for projects and public and private funding resource documents.

3.4 Watershed Implementation Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands

3.4.1 Developing an Implementation Plan

Once a decision is made about how to address problems in the watershed (e.g., projects have

been identified to achieve watershed goals) and the watershed plan has been completed, the

watershed group is in a position to develop an implementation program. This program will

augment the group’s watershed plan. An implementation program generally consists of the

following components (USEPA 2008a):

•••• An information/education component to support public participation and build management

capacity related to adopted management measures

•••• A schedule for implementing management measures

•••• Interim milestones to determine whether management measures are being implemented

•••• Criteria by which to measure progress toward reducing pollutant loads and other actions to

meet water quality, water quantity, and habitat goals in the watershed plan

•••• A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation efforts

•••• An estimate of the technical and financial resources and authorities needed to implement the

plan

•••• An evaluation framework



Wetlands can be characterized by their

condition and functions. Wetland condition is

the current state as compared to reference

standards for physical, chemical, and biological

characteristics. Wetland functions represent

the processes that characterize wetland

ecosystems.

Source: USEPA 2011d.

EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook provides an example implementation plan matrix in

section 12.8.

3.4.2 Using Reference Wetlands to Develop Site Plans and Measure Progress

EPA recommends the use of reference sites when designing and implementing a wetland

restoration, enhancement, or creation project when historical data on local wetland

characteristics are unavailable. Ideas regarding potential reference sites will likely have emerged

during the watershed plan development process. Those sites can now be further assessed as

necessary for their value as reference sites when plans for specific wetland restoration,

enhancement, or creation projects are developed. Typically, the entity undertaking the restoration

project, which could be a partner organization (e.g., governmental or non-governmental

organization) or a surrogate for the primary entity, such as a consultant, would be the party to

identify reference sites. If multiple parties are engaged in wetland restoration, enhancement, or

creation activities across the watershed, they could combine efforts as appropriate to identify

reference sites.

Reference wetlands are essentially models of the wetland characteristics needed to design a

restoration project that will be high functioning and successful. Brinson and Rheinhardt (1996)

define reference wetlands as “sites within a specified geographic region that are chosen for the

purposes of functional assessment, to encompass the known variation of a group or class of

wetlands, including both natural and disturbance mediated variations.”

Others define reference sites as nearby wetlands that represent the least disturbed wetlands in the

area. The sites are located in a similar landscape position to the project site. In general, only

natural wetlands of high ecological integrity should serve as reference sites. They should be

comparable in structure and function to the project site before it was degraded (IWWR 2003).

This means that not only do the reference wetlands demonstrate the highest achievable

ecological condition, but they also are performing the group of functions associated with that

wetland type at the highest levels to be expected.

An area targeted for wetland restoration may have

only one reference wetland or may be a subset of a

group of reference wetlands, also called reference

standards (Craft and Hopple 2011). In most cases,

it is best to use several reference sites to account

for the natural variation inherent in the population

of unaltered wetlands in the project area (IWWR

2003). Reference standards represent conditions

exhibited by a subset of reference wetlands that

correspond to the highest level of functioning of the ecosystem across multiple functions

(Brinson and Rheinhardt 1996).

The morphometry (detailed measurements of bottom elevations, microtopographic features, and

basin slopes) of a reference wetland can be recorded and the results used to plan and develop the

elevations, including microtopographic features, of the substrates of a restored wetland. Detailed

data on the plant species present, their heights or diameters at breast height, and cover values can



be used for selecting the plants and seed mixes that are most likely to replicate in the restored

wetlands over time. Hydrologic regimes for new wetlands can be developed using the data on

water sources, water depths, and durations at the reference wetlands.

Not only can information on reference wetlands be used, but their buffers can also be monitored

and replicated to further ensure that the project will most closely duplicate the conditions of the

reference wetlands. Once wetland targets are developed, based on the characteristics of the

reference wetlands, monitoring can be designed at the restored site to determine whether the

desired features are present and functioning as planned.

3.4.3 Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation Techniques

Restoration activities range from passive to active techniques. Passive techniques focus on

minimizing disturbances to the project area and can include tile decommissioning, ditch

plugging, amending soils, and planting and seeding of native species. Active restoration involves

more significant modifications to the existing landscape. Active restoration can include soil

excavation, filling and grading, the development of water control structures, and the construction

of berms and dikes to impound water. Whether active or passive, the goals for any restoration,

enhancement, or creation activity should be to use techniques that address multiple wetland

functions. For example, buffers might be used to reconnect wetlands with uplands to provide

habitat for native wildlife (wetland function = habitat), and they might also be used to slow and

filter runoff containing pollutants (wetland function = water quality).

Scientists and policymakers generally support the concept that restoring and enhancing wetlands

is preferred over creating them. Creation requires considerable planning and the control of

myriad factors. Because creation occurs in locations that were not historically wetland,

substantial modifications and disturbances to the landscape are often required to mimic the

hydrogeologic setting of wetlands. The scale of these disturbances increases stress on the system

and provides opportunities for stress-related problems, such as invasive plant species

establishment, to occur. Moreover, the outcome of creation projects is usually difficult to predict

(IWWR 2003).

As noted earlier, one of the wetland assessment steps is to identify wetlands of high ecological

integrity. Those wetlands are typically prioritized for protection. The next subset includes

existing or former wetlands that have high restoration or enhancement potential. Those adjacent

to areas of high ecological integrity would be preferred over areas with less ecological value.

Adjacent land uses and the availability of implementable control methods factor into the priority-

setting process. Creating wetlands is generally considered an option of last resort because of the

limitations discussed above.

Wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation techniques are generally the same, but the

considerations that go into planning and implementing the techniques vary in intensity and scale.

The simpler the design, the easier it can be to predict the outcome of the project (IWWR 2003).

Bioengineered approaches, or those that mimic natural ecosystem processes, are preferred over

engineered approaches that replace wetland functions with human-created structures (e.g., large

earthen impoundment berms, concrete and steel water control devices). Engineered approaches

are generally much more expensive than bioengineered approaches, and they require long-term



maintenance. Thus, opportunities for failure are high (IWWR 2003). Exhibit 8 provides some

guiding principles for wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation.

Exhibit 8. Guiding Principles for Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation

•••• Restore ecological integrity

•••• Minimize disturbances during

implementation

•••• Restore natural structure

•••• Restore natural function

•••• Design for self-sustainability

•••• Work within the watershed/landscape

context and understand the potential of

the watershed

•••• Involve a multidisciplinary team in

planning, implementation, monitoring

and long-term management

•••• Develop clear, achievable and

measurable goals for project

•••• Plan projects adjacent to or as part of

naturally occurring aquatic ecosystems

and healthy upland buffers

•••• Provide a hydrogeomorphic regime

similar to wetland type or riparian area

being restored

•••• Address ongoing causes of degradation

•••• Use passive restoration, when

appropriate

•••• Restore native species; avoid non-native

species

•••• Focus on feasibility (i.e., expectations for

the project are ecologically, socially, and

financially feasible)

•••• Monitor and adapt where corrective

actions are necessary

•••• Provide ongoing maintenance that starts

during the implementation stage

Sources: IWWR 2003; USEPA 2000 and 2005.

A list of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation techniques is provided in appendix D.

The techniques are organized according to the three wetland functions of primary interest in this

Supplement: (1) hydrology, (2) water quality, and (3) habitat. Some considerations for selecting

or using many of the techniques are also presented. Please note that few rules of thumb apply

nationwide. Watershed groups should consult local, state, and regional resources for additional

guidance on techniques used in their respective areas.

3.4.4 Fundamental Design Considerations for Wetland Projects

The project design phase requires the consideration of site-specific factors, operating

interdependently, to determine the structure and function of a wetland (Kentula 2002). The

following should be considered when designing a wetland restoration project: (1) site selection,

(2) hydrologic conditions, (3) water source and quality, (4) soils, (5) plant material selection and

handling, (6) site topography and surrounding land uses/cover, (7) buffer zone placement, and

(8) long-term management. Exhibit 9 at the end of the section summarizes a number of the

considerations that should be made. Some of those considerations are also discussed below.

Selecting the appropriate location is the most critical decision when designing a wetland

restoration, enhancement, or creation project. The wetland should be located where its services

will address watershed planning goals. One of the first considerations in selecting the location is

the hydrogeomorphic setting. This means that the wetland should be located where all the

hydrologic and geologic features are conducive to the establishment of the wetland type desired

to enable it to perform the range of desired functions. For example, as water runs downhill, it

pools in depressions. If the goal is to build a headwater depressional wetland that will provide

flood control, water quality improvements, and wildlife habitat features, one of the first steps



Urban Watersheds

Urban development trends generally are detrimental to

wetlands. Many wetlands are lost in the process and those

that remain are degraded by the high intensity of uses in the

urbanized surrounding areas. For example, the almost

continuous concrete, asphalt, and rooftops that harden the

landscape result in increased levels of stormwater runoff.

Attempts to restore urban watersheds include softening the

watershed by restoring important resources in locations

where their functions will add green structure (i.e., slow

down the flow of stormwater and contribute in other ways

to the overall improvement of the watershed).

In most situations, wetland restoration projects are planned

to provide the highest level of ecological condition possible.

Included in this planning tenet is the assumption that the

wetlands will also perform their functions at the highest

levels possible. Restorations in highly urbanized portions of

watersheds can make this standard difficult or impossible to

achieve.

The wetlands needed in some parts of urban watersheds

end up being planned and implemented to perform

functions such as flow attenuation, water quality

improvement, and floodwater retention at the expense of

overall wetland quality. These working wetlands, because of

the constant stress they experience, may be mostly or

completely comprised of an invasive species plant

community and have poor water quality, high rates of

sedimentation, and other indications of degradation.

However, their role is not to be pristine examples of

wetlands; instead, their mission is to perform their designed

functions in a way that maximizes the overall good for the

watershed. While these wetlands may not be “pretty to

look at,” some would consider them “true beauties” when

the overall benefits they provide for the watershed are

considered.

Source: Micacchion 2011.

should be to locate the wetland where

there is an existing depression, or where

one could be developed, that will receive

and pool rainwater. There could be many

areas in a watershed that would meet

these criteria, but by identifying them,

those implementing the watershed plan

can be assured that they have properly

considered hydrogeomorphic setting in

the selection process.

The next consideration would be to

determine which of the identified sites

will best meet the requirements for

achieving overall project goals. If we

continue with the goals of flood control,

water quality improvement, and wildlife

habitat as presented in the example

above, the selection would focus on the

characteristics that would make a project

site most likely to be successful. To

maximize flood control, the areas where

larger depressions could be developed

would be considered, and to assure the

wetland will empty and fill as many

times as possible, a site in a forested

setting would be targeted. The trees on

the pool edges will act as water pumps

during the growing season and release

water from the pool to the atmosphere.

This will result in quicker dry downs,

which will allow the pool to refill

providing its full water storage capacity

when additional rains occur. The more

times a depressional wetland empties and

fills during the year, the greater the flood

storage capacity, resulting in a higher volume of stormwater that never enters local streams

(Gamble et al. 2007).

Because most of the year water is not escaping the depression through overflow, due to the fact

that it is emptying between rain events through evapotranspiration, any pollutants in the

immediate basin that drain to the pool remain there. With the exception of large storm events

possibly flushing out these systems, pollutants generally do not have an opportunity to enter

local streams because water is not able to run down the surrounding slopes and dislodge and

carry the pollutants in its path into the neighboring stream network. In this way, the depression

also achieves the water quality improvement goal.



To meet the goal of providing wildlife habitat, a site can be selected from the locations that have

appropriate habitat features in the existing upland areas. These upland areas will act as buffers

and become the surrounding land uses of the newly established wetlands. Different selection

criteria can be used based on the desired habitat features of the wildlife species or community

targeted.

If the goal is to establish a vernal pool community, then the project would be selected from those

areas that could provide a large amount of undeveloped area around the pool. The undeveloped

area should be forested, and there should be some existing functional vernal pools in the

surrounding areas. This will enable repopulation of the restored pool through migration from

existing pool amphibian populations. If the goal is to provide waterfowl habitat instead, then a

more open situation surrounding the pool with a mix of emergent and shrub vegetation

communities and far less trees would be desirable. A water quality goal in this scenario could

also be accomplished: the vernal pool may act to remove contaminants from flood waters and

runoff, including those waters from agricultural and urban lands.

Multiple other criteria beyond those above would be evaluated to judge the remaining sites to

determine which one or ones have the best chance to successfully provide the desired functions,

including:

•••• Are hydric soils present?

•••• Are the desired microtopographic features present or can they be established?

•••• Can the desired hydrologic regime be restored with minimal disturbance to the site and

surrounding landscape?

•••• Are the soil organic carbon and other nutrient levels amenable to plant growth?

To address conditions farther down in the watershed, where runoff from larger areas is occurring,

wetland restoration projects that provide primarily flood storage and water quality improvement

functions would have a high priority. The location of the wetland project is once again the most

important criterion. Here the wetlands should be placed to maximize the amount and frequency

of overflow they receive from the large streams in this part of the watershed. The ideal location

for the wetlands would be in the floodplain near the channels of the large streams. Also, the

wetlands should be established at elevations that assure they will receive floodwaters in most

bank overflow situations.

The larger the size of a wetland, the more floodwater storage it can provide. So if the space

exists, larger wetlands should be situated in the floodplain. To make sure the location will

maximize attenuation of peak flows, some level 1 assessment data can be used to make

selections on which parts of the watershed are experiencing problems related to flooding and

poor water quality and where placement of additional wetlands would provide the most benefit.

Wetlands in those locations will also maximize water quality improvement functions. As the

wetlands slow the flow of the water, pollutants including sediments, nitrate-nitrogen,

phosphorus, and pesticides will settle out or be taken up by wetland vegetation before they can

enter streams. As a secondary benefit, the addition of wetlands in the floodplains and riparian



corridors of large streams will also provide contiguous areas of wildlife habitat. Using all the

data assembled, the watershed plan implementer can make a decision on the best available site

for a wetland project. Once this step is complete, project planning can begin in earnest. See

exhibit 9 for additional site design considerations.

Exhibit 9. Wetland Design Considerations

Factors Considerations

Site Selection

The selected site will have significant impacts on the outcome of the wetland project.

1. Have you determined the acreage needed for the wetland to perform the desired

functions?

2. Have you considered present and projected future land uses (Kentula 2002)?

3. Have you considered sites on a local, regional, or state priority wetland restoration

lists (IWWR 2003)?

4. Have you considered areas of special interest (e.g., previously identified because

site harbors endangered and threatened species or represents last remaining

remnants of particular wetland type) (IWWR 2003)?

5. Have you considered the presence of manmade boundaries including political

boundaries, private property boundaries, and utility and transportation corridors

(UWM 2005)?

6. Have you determined whether site is adjacent to existing wetland complexes

and/or in an area of former wetland?

Hydrologic

Condition

1. Does the project site have hydrologic conditions that allow the area to distribute

water received from precipitation and groundwater sources? Projects that only

receive water from surface runoff are limited in certain wetland functions, including

retention time. Reduced retention time in a wetland limits the ability of the

wetland to improve water quality and provide base flow to neighboring streams

during drought conditions (UWM 2005).

2. Have you accounted for inflows and outflows from groundwater and nearby

streams (Kentula 2002)?

3. What is the configuration of the basin, slope relative to the water table, flooding

frequency and duration, and degree of soil saturation (Kentula 2002)?

4. Have you assessed the impact restoration might have on neighboring properties?

Will the water be kept on site and not raise surface or groundwater levels of

surrounding property owners that do not want their hydrology to change?

Water Source and

Quality

1. Will the project site receive runoff from roads, agricultural lands, or developed

areas? The associated pollutants, nutrients, or sediments in the runoff may

overwhelm and limit the functioning of the restored wetland (UWM 2005). Unless

nutrient trapping is a chosen function.

2. What is the connectivity of the wetland project site to other wetlands in the

watershed (UWM 2005)?

•••• Wetlands that have increased connectivity to other natural or restored

wetlands in the watershed are better able to support increased biodiversity,

water quality, and hydrology.

•••• Wetlands that are inter- and intra- connected can help to increase individual

wetland retention time, making them better able to abate flooding and

improve water quality.




Water Source and

Quality

continued

•••• Wetlands with little or no connectivity when inundated with pollutants may

not be able to filter and improve water quality for downstream areas.

•••• The presence of pollutants can also leave the vegetation in the wetland

vulnerable to invasion by nonnative species, which further modifies wetland

condition and function (Kentula 2002).

Soils

Wetland soils exhibit anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions during the growing

seasons, which are caused by saturated and flooded conditions for long periods of

time. Those inundated and saturated soils, called hydric soils, are capable of storing

chemicals and controlling plant species and growth (Kentula 2002). Allowing soil

profiles to remain intact and select or amend them to provide high levels of organic

matter and appropriate amounts of nutrients to encourage establishment and growth

of robust and diverse plant communities (EPA 2012)

1. Are pollutants or toxic substances from previous activities present in the soil at the

project site or in areas adjacent to the site? This situation should be avoided as

chemicals may be toxic to human health or inhibit proper functioning of the

wetland (Kentula 2002).

2. What are the soil elevation, porosity, and erosion rate of existing soil at the site

(IWWR 2003)? Selected sites should require as little disturbance of the soils as

possible, which puts a premium on targeting those areas where hydric soils and

other preexisting wetland features are still present. Existing soils may serve as a

seed bank for native plants. If grading is necessary, topsoils should be stockpiled

and used for the last upper 6 to 12 inches of the soil profile.

3. Does the soil need to be amended to aid the formation of hydric soils? Organic

matter from another area of the wetland could be used as an amendment if

available. Note that the addition of amendments can increase the risk of the

introduction of unwanted plant species (Kentula 2002) or minerals such as

phosphorus.

Plant Material and

Seed Handling

Vegetation plays a key role in the functioning of a wetland site.

1. Have you identified native plant species and sources thereof? Use seeds, plantings,

or cuttings from local plants to ensure that the vegetation mimics other area

wetlands. Consider plant species that are adaptable and resilient (IWWR 2003).

Identify whether native species are on site or nearby that could pose problems.

2. Establish a robust wetland plant community as quickly as possible. Plant and seed

at high densities to rapidly establish a thick carpet of vegetation that will jump

start a healthy plant community and minimize opportunities for establishment of

nonnative and invasive species.

3. Consider species adaptable and resilient to varying water depths (Kentula 2002).

Use the elevations from your plans and information on the resulting water depths

and durations to pick the appropriate plant species for the differing hydrologic

regimes experienced across the wetland.

4. Avoid planting nonnative or invasive species since they can quickly take over the

wetland and eliminate any native species planted (Kentula 2002). Make sure your

plant selections are species that have historically been present in the area. USDA

Plants (plants.usda.gov) and other more local sources can be checked to

determine the natural range of wetland and buffer area plant species.




Buffer Zone

Placement

1. Include a buffer zone around the project. Buffers provide additional habitat

around the edge of the wetland for use by wildlife species and can increase the

overall diversity of the wetland (Thompson and Luthin 2010). In addition, buffer

zones can help minimize the effects of current neighboring, developed land uses

and help prevent land development near the wetland in the future. Buffers can

collect and prevent undesirable materials, such as fertilizers, herbicides,

pesticides, and other soluble pollutants from entering the wetland through runoff

(Kentula 2002). Consider establishing at least 50 meters on all sides (EPA 2012).

2. Consider using fencing around the outside of a buffer in urbanized areas to

provide additional protection of the wetland (Kentula 2002). Be sure the fence is

located above the high water level on adjacent uplands or else it will act as a

debris collector requiring regular maintenance.

Long Term

Management

1. Have you considered who will be responsible for the long-term monitoring and

maintenance of the project site? Monitoring will likely be required for periods of

10 years or more. Maintenance should be in perpetuity.

•••• Projects that are not maintained often fall into disrepair and may no longer

function as intended (IWWR 2003).

•••• The long-term manager should be identified at the beginning of the process

and should be involved in making important decisions about the design of

the wetland project.

•••• Consider ways to reduce maintenance and monitoring. The more human-

developed the structures is, the more burdensome maintenance is likely to

be (Kentula 2002; IWWR 2003).

•••• Techniques that are simple, self-sustaining, or self-managing will have the

highest long-term success rate (Kentula 2002; IWWR 2003).

2. Have you identified who will maintain the monitoring data collected from the

project site? A repository for this information should be designated in the

planning stages and a standard format for recording, analyzing, and presenting

monitoring data results should be used. This practice will allow comparisons

through the years and provide a history for others who may inherit project

management responsibilities in the future.

Sources: Kentula 2002; IWWR 2003; UWM 2005; Thompson and Luthin 2010.

The success of a wetland project is not entirely dependent on the achievement of ecological

factors. Other nonecological factors can pose implications for a project’s outcome. Typical

constraints are summarized below (IWWR 2003; USEPA 2005). Awareness and consideration of

constraints is critical to project success and to achieving goals of the larger watershed plan.

Typical Ecological Constraints Typical Nonecological Constraints

•••• Poor water quality

•••• Nutrient poor soils limiting plant growth

or allowing invasive species dominance

•••• Lack of sufficient water/drawdown of

local aquifer

•••• Overly deep water

•••• Pollutants

•••• Improper sun exposure for chosen

•••• Resources to implement project

•••• Resistance by landowners and mistrust of

watershed groups and others trying to

undertake wetland restoration,

enhancement, or creation

•••• Time and resources to contact

landowners whose properties have been

identified as high quality restoration



Typical Ecological Constraints Typical Nonecological Constraints

plantings

•••• Plants placed in habitats too wet or too

dry to survive

•••• Sparse or no vegetation growth

•••• Presence of invasive and/or nonnative

species in and around project site

•••• Presence of invasive and/or nonnative

species on adjacent lands

•••• Presence of herbivores that decimate

plantings and seedlings

sites; providing them with information

on the benefits and limitations of

restoration; and assisting landowners

throughout the entire restoration

process

•••• Disagreement amongst landowners over

project components affecting their

respective properties

•••• Community concerns

•••• Legal or regulatory issues (e.g.,

requirements for permits)

•••• Presence of cultural resources

•••• Incompatible land uses on adjacent lands

•••• Incompatible planned future land uses

•••• Sources of funding

3.4.5 Project-Specific Implementation Activities

Project-specific implementation activities are typically undertaken by federal, state and local

governmental entities and nongovernmental organizations (e.g., citizen groups, local land trusts,

and conservation organizations) that have committed to undertaking the project. These

implementers are likely one or more of the stakeholders the watershed group identified and

involved early in the watershed planning development process. (See section 3.3.1 under the

subtitle “Identify Key Stakeholders” for a further discussion of this topic and for examples of

possible implementers.) Project implementers, regardless of who they are, should develop an

implementation plan that links back to the watershed plan. The more aligned and involved those

parties have been in the development of the watershed plan, the more likely it will be that their

efforts are explicitly being undertaken to achieve one or more goals specified in the watershed

plan. In other words, the watershed management plan is “everybody who is working in the

watershed’s plan or roadmap.” That is, of course, the ideal situation.

There are generally six common steps to implementing a wetland project: (1) volunteer or staff

preparation, (2) site preparation, (3) plant preparation, (4) installation/construction, (5) review

and preparation of as-built documentation,2 and (6) maintenance activities. Each step would be

addressed in the implementation plan. The complexity of each step will vary depending on

project goals. Exhibit 10 provides a list of some wetland restoration activities in each of the six

steps. Exhibit 10. Example Implementation Activities by Project Implementation Phase

Project Implementation Step Example Activities

Volunteer Preparation (if

volunteers are used) or

Staff/Contractor Training

•••• Involving the community in a wetland project can have numerous

immediate and long-term benefits.

•••• Volunteers can help with implementation and monitoring and help

reduce costs and encourage community support.

•••• Local volunteers can be found through nonprofit environmental groups,

2 As a project is constructed, changes in the design inevitably occur. Those changes are noted on the design plans.

The revised plans or drawings become the as-builts when the project is completed.



Project Implementation Step Example Activities

schools, and public and private service groups.

•••• If staff or contractors are used, some degree of training or consultation

would need to be provided to discuss expectations and protocols to be

followed.

Site Preparation •••• Removal of soil, debris, and trash

•••• Removal of polluted soils

•••• Plugging or disabling drains

•••• Breaching of levees

Plant Preparation •••• Collecting seed and cuttings

•••• Propagating plants

•••• Collecting newly grown whole plants

•••• Seeding

•••• Buying plants

•••• In most wetlands some natural revegetation will occur, but for almost all

projects, it is best to plant and seed with indigenous species.

Engineering Design and

Permitting and Installation and

Construction

•••• Developing any necessary engineering plans; applying and receiving any

required permits

•••• Constructing water control structures

•••• Grading existing soils

•••• Decommissioning and backfilling tiles

•••• Installing bank stabilization structures

As-built Assessment The purpose of an as-built assessment is to ensure that the project has been

completed as designed and specified and that it complies with regulatory

requirements. Any deviations from the plan should be addressed,

documented, and corrected. The as-built assessment serves as a baseline for

future monitoring of the project site.

Regular

Maintenance/Management

Regular maintenance, starting immediately after construction, is conducted

to ensure the site is functioning properly and is achieving project goals. Any

problems that arise should be addressed without delay. Maintenance

practices and frequency may be modified based on monitoring results

throughout the life of the site. Maintenance activities are an integral part in

the overall success and long-term management of a site. Experienced

wetland managers are good sources of information regarding important

maintenance and management activities to perform.

Source: IWWR 2003.

3.5 Watershed Monitoring Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands

This Supplement uses the term monitoring to mean the design and implementation of methods

and tools to collect information that will answer questions on the health and integrity of

ecosystem resources. Monitoring can also be referred to as the systematic observation and

recording of current and changing conditions, while assessment is the use of that data to evaluate

or appraise wetlands to support decision-making and planning processes.3 As stated earlier, at

this phase, monitoring is performed to measure restoration progress in relation to specified goals

3 http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/monitoring.cfm.



and objectives in the site plan. Monitoring methods can be visual or quantitative. The protocols

selected should ensure that the information collected will measure whether wetland activities

have performed as expected. Additionally, monitoring should be planned in a way that will allow

analysis of the data to provide direction for how any shortcomings can best be addressed through

adaptive management. Monitoring should be performed to measure success and then to assess

the need for adaptive management. Refer to chapters 12 and 13 of EPA’s Watershed Planning

Handbook for further information on monitoring during project and watershed plan

implementation. Chapter 8 of the Handbook provides information on how one might use

monitoring data or literature values to estimate pollutant loads.

3.5.1 Wetland Project Site Monitoring

Most of the monitoring during the implementation stage will be qualitative (visual) and will

entail keeping close track of developments and eliminating any problems as they arise. For

instance, invasive species may show up in a few locations even as the construction is still

ongoing. If those few plants can be observed and eliminated as they become established, they

will not be able to spread and become a larger problem. Further, when soils are disturbed, there

is an increased risk of invasive species establishing themselves. Without monitoring during

implementation, there is potential for invasive species to become well-established and require

large amounts of time and resources for eradication. The case for early and continuous

monitoring during the establishment phase cannot be overstated.

An accurate appraisal of the restored/reconstructed site is needed to be able to apply the

appropriate management techniques or gauge the performance of the project. To reach the level

of detail required for some elements (e.g., soil or water chemistry), more intensive data gathering

that goes beyond visual observations is necessary. This next level, known as quantitative

monitoring, involves the collection and recording of physical, chemical, and biological

measurements. The measurements that will provide in-depth understanding of the ecological

condition and functioning of the wetlands and provide the best opportunities to address any

deficiencies are selected. Some example elements for which qualitative and quantitative

monitoring might be performed for wetland projects are listed in exhibit 11.

Exhibit 11. Examples of Qualitative versus Quantitative Monitoring Mechanisms and Parameters

and Monitoring Frequency Considerations

Qualitative Quantitative

Mechanism: visual, includes aerial and

ground-level photographs

Factors/Parameters Assessed: water

clarity, species present, vegetation

condition, and integrity of structures

Mechanisms: Recording and collecting

samples; physical/analytical

measurements

Factors/Parameters Assessed: wetland

delineation (area measurement), water

levels (hydrographs), plant and animal

species, plant cover and animal densities,

index scores for flora or fauna, soil

chemistry and bulk densities, and erosion

rates



Monitoring Frequency

•••• Annually for most elements

•••• More frequent monitoring until

project integrates into watershed

based on achievement of

performance standards. (This can

range from a few years to decades.)

Projects should be monitored for a

minimum of 5 years, longer if the

end goal is a forested system or

when goals and sustainability are

not met.

•••• During growing season for vegetation

and wetland delineation

•••• During breeding, nesting, and/or

migration seasons for animals

•••• Year-round for hydrology

Source: IWWR 2003.

3.5.2 Performance Standards

Restoration projects include explicitly stated goals and objectives that tie into those stated in the

watershed plan. To assess whether a project is successful, performance standards (also called

success criteria, performance indicators, or measures of success) are established. The standards

are the means through which the project implementer will assess whether the restoration project

is achieving stated objectives and, thus, project goals.

The need for performance standards was highlighted in the 2001 NRC report on wetland

mitigation. The NRC recommended measurements of the viability of replaced wetland functions

and defined performance standards as follows:

…observable or measurable attributes or outcomes of a

compensatory mitigation project that help determine whether the

project meets its goals and objectives (NRC 2001).

In addition, the panel suggested that performance standards be clear, measurable standards that

indicate whether a restored or created wetland can be or already is self-sustaining (ELI 2004a).

Although performance standards are often discussed in the context of mitigation projects, they

should be applied to all wetland restoration projects as a way to measure the progress and

success of a project.

Performance standards should be tied to the restoration goals and objectives established

for the site during the planning process (IWR 2007). They should measure the functionality

and condition of a wetland. As a result, performance standards are site-specific. Ideally, they are

measurable and specific enough to enable one to evaluate site progress and success, and provide

the feedback needed to identify needed adaptive management. Performance standards need to be

quantifiable and specify numeric criteria, or, rather than being held to a single value, they may

specify a minimum, maximum, or range of acceptable values (Ossinger 2008). In this way, the

standards are flexible to accommodate those measured characteristics of wetlands that naturally

vary from wetland to wetland or for which a value anywhere in a range is acceptable. Those

implementing performance standards need to know the methods for measuring them and the time

frames for their achievement (IWR 2007; Ossinger 2008).



Example Performance Standards

Biotic standards

•••• Amphibians

•••• Fish

•••• Macroinvertebrates

•••• Birds

•••• Mammals

•••• Algae

•••• Vegetation

Source: ELI 2004a.

Abiotic standards

•••• Hydrology

•••• Soils

•••• Sediment

•••• Nutrients

Performance standards will be based on project

goals and can be grouped into biotic, abiotic (see

inset), and landscape-level standards and can be

time-specific. For wetland restoration sites,

performance standards typically include at a

minimum some sort of measurement for

hydrology, vegetation, fauna, and soils (ELI

2004a). Standards for hydrology may include

saturation of the surface or standing water during

a certain time of the year. Vegetation and fauna

standards may specify species present, diversity

of species, number of breeding populations (fauna), sizes and densities (plants), or reaching an

index score (flora and fauna) within a certain number of years (Ossinger 2008; Mack et al. 2004).

Examples of performance standards grouped by wetlands function is provided in exhibit 12. Any

time a performance standard is not met, an investigation into causes should be undertaken and

corrective actions taken. (Ossinger 2008).

Exhibit 12. Examples of Performance Standards Grouped by Wetland Function

Wildlife Habitat

Interspersion of differing wetland plant communities

Aquatic invertebrate diversity

Plants species diversity/Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) score/

Floristic Quality Index (FQI) score

Presence of birds/amphibians/fish/mammals

Presence of bird/amphibian/fish/mammal breeding populations

Wildlife community IBI score

Water Quality

Slope

Sedimentation rates

Plant phosphorus/nitrogen removal

Soil carbon/phosphorus/nitrogen sequestration rates

Flood Attenuation

Size of wetland

Number of annual dry downs (number of times the wetland empties and fills

during the year; the greater the frequency, the greater the flood storage

capacity of the wetland)

Surface water depth and duration

Source: Ossinger 2008.

Although detailed performance standards such as meeting a minimum number of plant species or

a target number of breeding populations, or reaching an index score within a set period, might

not seem attainable due to lack of time, and/or money, project implementers need performance

standards to drive the adaptive management process. Watershed management plans should at the

very least include generalized wetland performance standards similar to those for other NPS

BMPs. These should include, reaching a minimum target size and meeting design criteria to be

considered a wetland (e.g., contain a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and



sufficient hydrology and not be dominated by invasive species). There is an increased likelihood

that projects without performance standards will not only fail to address the water quality,

quantity, and habitat goals/objectives established in the watershed plan but become an additional

problem project sponsor will have to eventually address. It is important to note that some project

funding sources will require that monitoring be performed in accordance with specified standards

and procedures. Others will require some form of monitoring to demonstrate progress and project

success. Performance standards will help project implementers ensure that they have designed

and implemented a wetland restoration, enhancement, or creation project that meets specified

goals in the watershed plan.

3.6 Watershed Long-term Management Considerations When Incorporating Wetlands

Long-term maintenance plans for restored wetlands should be developed as part of the watershed

plan. These plans help to ensure that restored wetlands are maintained to help improve water

quality, quantity, or habitat issues in the watershed. Critical maintenance activities associated

with a newly restored wetland site include invasive plant species control, maintenance of water

control structures, site access restriction, and other activities. The maintenance plans should

specify who is responsible for the site, the specific activities to be performed, and over what time

frames. A key consideration in developing long-term management plans is to secure the requisite

funds or funding mechanisms for implementing the project plan, as well as identifying the

manager or responsible third party to manage the site long term. The timeline for site

maintenance is into perpetuity. One option for long-term stewardship might be to sell or donate

the site to a natural resource agency or land trust. Ideally, the identified long-term manager

would participate in the project and long-term management planning processes. In addition, a

conservation easement should be made for the wetland project area that clearly spells out the

activities that can and cannot occur there. This site protection mechanism transfers with the deed;

it will provide long-term protection for the wetland project and ensure that the watershed

improvement function remains in place.

If the project implementer has arranged with different parties, such as citizen groups, schools, or

consultants, to help perform monitoring or other activities, the plan should clearly specify or

reference when and where the activities are to occur and the specific sample collection and other

protocols that are to be followed. It is also important to ensure the retention of records for use by

future watershed and wetland planners should the project site change ownership.

If a wetland project is designed and implemented properly, it will likely require little long-term

maintenance. As discussed under the restoration techniques section earlier (section 3.4.2), the

less engineered a project, the fewer long-term maintenance requirements. If project implementers

are limited in terms of staff and resources, they should, at a minimum, develop a generalized

long-term management plan. This generalized plan would need to specify how and when the

project implementer or watershed group will follow up on a restoration project after it is

constructed. The plan would also need to document routine maintenance and corrective measures

to be taken in the event performance standards are not being met in perpetuity. Protection of the

restored wetland through a conservation easement must occur. With such mechanisms in place,

the project has a much greater likelihood of long-term success. Investments in the design and



implementation of wetland restoration projects, or other environmental projects for that matter,

could be lost without some degree of maintenance being performed.

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Approaches for Assessing Wetlands


4. Approaches for Assessing Wetlands in a Watershed Context

This chapter includes four case studies, each of which outlines an approach for identifying

former and existing wetlands in a watershed context and prioritizing those areas that would

contribute to resolving such watershed problems as altered hydrology, impaired water quality,

and destruction or fragmentation of habitat. Linkages to watershed management plans are made

where appropriate. The costs to conduct analyses like those described in the case studies are

highly variable. Readers interested in this type of information are encouraged to contact the

investigators whose contact information is provided at the end of each case study.

Future editions of this Supplement might include case studies that show how wetlands sites

identified through assessment processes like those presented in this chapter have proceeded to

the project planning and implementation phase and have been assessed for success in relation to

performance criteria. Those case studies might also show how project implementation ties back

to the goals and objectives of the applicable watershed plan.



4.1 Michigan’s Landscape Level Wetland Functional Assessment Tool and Wetland Restoration Prioritization Model

This case study discusses an approach the state of Michigan has developed to help watershed

groups assess the location, condition, and function of wetlands as part of the watershed planning

process. Specifically, it discusses use of an assessment process in the Paw Paw and Clinton

River watersheds. The case study also summarizes a model developed to prioritize existing and

former wetlands for restoration in the Clinton River watershed.

4.1.1 Overview of Michigan’s Wetland Assessment Tool

The landscape-level wetland functional assessment (LLWFA) tool was developed by staff of the

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in conjunction with cooperating state

and local agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations. It enables users to identify

existing wetlands and the functions those wetlands currently perform. The LLWFA tool also

enables the user to identify historical or former wetlands (i.e., areas of hydric soils that are not

currently wetlands) and the functions they would likely perform if restored. Exhibit 13

summarizes uses of the LLWFA.

Exhibit 13. LLWFA Uses

The information contained in an LLWFA analysis is intended to approximate wetland function

across the landscape. The NWI was used in the LLFWA analysis to report status and trends. The

approach addresses both current wetland inventory and a pre-European Settlement inventory,

to approximate change over time and provide the best information possible on wetland status

and trends from original condition through today.

Source: MDEQ 2011.

The LLWFA is modeled after the NWIPlus and W–PAWF (see chapter 2). Essentially, MDEQ

staff, with the assistance of staff of several federal and state agencies, developed an NWIPlus

database for the Midwest through the addition of regional and state-specific datasets and

mapping tools. MDEQ then pilot-tested the LLWFA in the Paw Paw River watershed. Since the

pilot, MDEQ has worked with many watershed groups in the state to use the LLWFA to assist

and encourage watershed groups to incorporate wetlands into their watershed planning projects;

the MDEQ now routinely prepares the LLWFA tool for all watershed planning projects funded

under its CWA section 319 nonpoint source program.

4.1.2 Pilot Test of the LLWFA in the Paw Paw River Watershed

About the Watershed

The Paw Paw River watershed (PPRW) is in the southwestern

corner of the lower peninsula of Michigan in Berrien, Van Buren,

and Kalamazoo counties. The surface area of the watershed is

approximately 445 square miles. The Paw Paw River flows

westward through southwestern Lower Michigan, where it joins the

St. Joseph River, which in turn empties into Lake Michigan near

the town of Benton Harbor.

Source: SWMPC 2008.



The river and lands of the PPRW support a variety of unique natural features. They include rare

Great Lakes marshes; floodplain forests that serve as important corridors for migratory

songbirds; wetland systems and complexes, including areas where groundwater swells up over

peat mats and across glades; oak barrens; prairie remnants; and one of the largest fen complexes

in southwest Michigan. The PPRW is home to a multitude of threatened, endangered, and

general concern species and natural communities, including 23 species of animals, 46 species of

plants, 7 natural communities, and the Great Blue Heron Rookery (SWMPC 2008).

Land cover in the Paw Paw River watershed was largely forested prior to European settlement in

the early to mid-1800s. This land cover has become fragmented due to agricultural, residential,

and urban development; however, large patches of intact, natural land cover remains. Watershed

planners in the region recognize that “preservation and restoration of natural land cover, as well

as proper management of agricultural lands, will be critical to protecting and improving water

quality in the PPRW.” (SWMPC 2008, p. 27.)

Threats to the ecological health of the watershed include hydrologic alterations, invasive species,

habitat loss and fragmentation, incompatible land uses, and shoreline development. Threats to

the region’s wetlands and floodplains include filling or draining for agricultural, industrial, and

other uses; altered hydrology; exotic species invasion; altered fire regimes; and polluted runoff

containing sediments, nutrients, and chemicals (SWMPC 2008).

Developing a Watershed Management Plan and Building Partnerships

In 2008, the Southwest Michigan Planning Commission (Commission) and partners completed

development of the Paw Paw River Watershed Management Plan. The plan is available online at

http://www.swmpc.org/pprw_mgmt_plan.asp. The plan’s intention is “to guide individuals,

businesses, organizations, and governmental units working cooperatively to ensure the water and

natural resources necessary for future growth and prosperity are improved and protected. It can

be used to educate watershed residents on how they can improve and protect water quality,

encourage and direct natural resource protection and preservation, and develop land use planning

and zoning that will protect water quality in the future. Implementation of the plan will require

stakeholders to work across township, county, and other political boundaries.” (SWMPC 2008,

p. 11).

The Commission accomplished this goal by soliciting public input on all stages of plan

development and developing a steering committee made up of representatives of governmental

and non-governmental organizations to provide technical input into the plan. The Commission

reported that “[s]teering committee and sub-committee participants were instrumental in

identifying and commenting on designated uses, desired uses, pollutants, sources and causes of

pollutants, priority or critical areas and in developing goals, objectives and an action plan. Many

partners were instrumental in providing information, completing modeling efforts, organizing

and implementing the volunteer inventory and providing feedback on early versions of the plan.”

(SWMPC 2008, p. 61.) During plan development, the Commission maintained a website

containing meeting summaries and providing an online forum that allowed individuals to submit

comments in an effort to keep partners and stakeholders involved. The media also assisted by

alerting watershed stakeholders and residents of the plan.



LLWFA Components

Development of the LLWFA for the Paw Paw River watershed involved the collection and

integration of spatial data, the classification of NWI polygons with HGM descriptors, and the

correlation of wetland functions with the NWI polygons. (See chapter 2 for background on the

NWI and HGM.) GIS technology enables users to define one or more areas of specified coverage

on a map. One can use the areas to find relationships to other features that are represented as

polygons, point data, addresses, and specific geographic locations. Exhibit 14 presents a

summary of the GIS spatial data collected and integrated for the LLWFA.

Exhibit 14. GIS Spatial Data Collected and Integrated for the LLWFA

As noted previously, the LLWFA is modeled after the NWIPlus and W–PAWF, both of which

are described in chapter 2. At the time the LLWFA was developed, the W–PAWF could be used

to predict 10 wetland functions. The LLWFA evaluated nine of those in the Paw Paw River

watershed: (1) surface water detention, (2) streamflow maintenance, (3) nutrient transformation,

(4) sediment and other particulate retention, (5) shoreline stabilization, (6) provision of fish and

shellfish habitat, (7) provision of waterfowl and waterbird habitat, (8) provision of other wildlife

habitat, and (9) conservation of biodiversity (rare or imperiled wetland habitats in the local

region with regional significance for biodiversity). Stream shading was evaluated as a

subfunction of fish and shellfish habitat. MDEQ and the Commission did not evaluate the W–

PAWF wetland function of coastal storm surge detention as it was determined to not be

applicable for the watershed (Fizzell, 2007; Tiner et al. 2001).

Data Collection and Integration, General Methods

• USFWS NWI (digital data based on 1:24000 aerial photos from the late 1970s and early

1980s)

• USGS and EPA National Hydrology Dataset (NHD), medium resolution (based on Digital

Line Graph (DLG) hydrography at 1:100,000 scale)

• USGS Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) topography and Digital Elevation Models (DEM)

(scanned USGS topo quads)

• NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) soil surveys (digitized data from paper soil surveys

at 1:24000)

• USGS National Aerial Photographic Program (NAPP) 1998 digital orthophoto mosaics

(photography usable at 1:12000)

• Michigan Center for Geographic Information’s (CGI) Framework (includes roads, political

boundaries, hydrography, census figures, etc.)

Data Collection and Integration, Pre-settlement Wetland Inventory

• NRCS soil survey data (based on 1:15,840 soil maps)

• Michigan’s Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) pre-settlement vegetation maps (derived

from General Land Office Survey maps created between 1816 and 1856)

Data Collection and Integration, 1998 Wetland Inventory

• NWI mapping based on USFWS Cowardin wetland classification system

Source: Fizzell 2007.



LLWFA Products

MDEQ produced a set of hard-copy maps as final products of the Paw Paw River watershed

LLWFA. The maps illustrated the extent of wetlands during pre-settlement and the 1998 (current

conditions) predicted wetlands of significance for the above nine wetland functions, wetlands

separated by HGM type, and wetlands separated by USFWS classification (Cowardin) type

(Fizzell 2007).

Trends by Generalized USFWS (NWI) Type

The LLWFA revealed that wetland acreage had fallen in the Paw Paw River watershed by 43

percent from pre-settlement (early to mid-1800s) to 1998. Wetlands went from constituting 23

percent of the total watershed area to constituting 13 percent during the period. Exhibit 15

illustrates these findings in map format. The number of non-forested, palustrine wetlands

increased during the period, from 1 to 15 percent for emergent wetlands and from 3 to 13 percent

for scrub-shrub wetlands. (See inset next page.) In general, MDEQ attributes the increases to

large areas of forest having been cut for timber or ineffectively drained for agriculture and then

later reverting to emergent wetlands. Some of the emergent wetlands later went to scrub-shrub

condition through succession (Fizzell 2007).

Exhibit 15. Paw Paw River Watershed Wetland Extent

Note: Pre-settlement wetlands are shown in red, and 1998 wetlands are show in green.




Terrene wetlands are those surrounded by

upland (non-hydric soils).

Lotic wetlands are associated with a river or

stream or their active floodplains.

Lentic wetlands consist of all wetlands in a

lake basin (i.e., the depression containing

the lake), including lakeside wetlands

intersected by streams emptying into the

lake.

Source: Tiner 2003.

Paw Paw River Watershed Wetland Types

Pre-settlement Wetland Types: Vegetated wetlands

•••• 96% forested (mixed hardwood swamp, black ash swamp, and tamarack

swamp)

•••• 3% shrub

•••• 1% emergent

1998 Wetland Types: Vegetated wetlands

•••• 65% forested

•••• 15% emergent

•••• 13% shrub


Trends by HGM Type

Pre-settlement wetlands covered 64,657 acres

across 3,161 wetlands. Terrene wetland types

represented nearly 60 percent of wetland area; lotic

types, 34 percent; and lentic types, 7 percent. (See

sidebar for definitions of these wetland types.) The

LLWFA revealed that the number of individual

wetlands increased by 187 percent during the

period, but wetland acreage dropped by 43 percent.

In general, MDEQ attributes the increase in the

number of wetlands to landscape (i.e., habitat)

fragmentation. The types of wetlands present also

shifted: terrene (not including ponds) and lentic

wetlands dropped to representing 48 percent and 5

percent of wetland area; lotic wetlands, however, increased to representing 47 percent of wetland

area. Ponds were found to have increased in the watershed by 174 percent since pre-settlement

times.

Trends by Wetland Function

In terms of total area, the LLWFA revealed that functional loss in the Paw Paw River watershed

ranged from 62 percent (conservation of biodiversity) to 27 percent (waterfowl and waterbird

habitat). Wetlands that served as sources of streams (stream flow maintenance) experienced an

overall decrease of 44 percent (exhibits 16 and 17) (Fizzell 2007).



Exhibit 16. Paw Paw River Watershed Pre–Settlement Wetlands with High Significance

for Stream Flow Maintenance


Exhibit 17. Paw Paw River Watershed 1998 Wetlands with High Significance for

Stream Flow Maintenance


In addition, ditching of headwater wetlands was found to have resulted in lost wetland hydrology

completely or to a point at which the wetlands could no longer effectively contribute to

downstream flow. The LLWFA further revealed a 50 percent reduction in the ability of the



watershed’s wetlands to retain sediment, and nutrient transformation was found to be performing

at 55 percent of the wetlands’ original capacities. These factors contribute to worsening of

surface water quality in the watershed. In terms of habitat, waterfowl habitat was reduced by 27

percent and fish/shellfish habitat by 61 percent. The steep decline in fish/shellfish habitat has

been attributed to the loss of forested floodplain wetlands and the reduced stream flow from the

headwaters that once provided cold water for Paw Paw River watershed trout fisheries.

LLWFA Limitations

The authors of the LLWFA caution that the approach has certain limitations, which should

influence how the tool is used. For example, care should be taken when using the results of

analyses based on interpretations of aerial photography alone, such as with some of the historical

wetland extent and condition data. The LLWFA does not consider the relative significance of

two wetlands predicted to perform the same function (Fizzell 2007). The tool and others like it,

however, are not intended to be the only form of analysis performed. The LLWFA is, in essence,

a screening tool for identifying wetland types and their functions.

Summary

This study found that wetland resources in the Paw Paw River watershed have changed

drastically since pre-settlement, with both wetland acreage and function decreasing significantly.

Therefore, it was realized that wetland restoration activities could possibly lead to water quality

improvements in the watershed. It is important to remember that the LLWFA is intended as a

first-level or coarse-scale assessment of wetland location, condition, and function. A subsequent

step in the watershed planning process is to ground-truth the data from the LLWFA through

other level 1 or 2 analyses, as discussed in chapter 3. The LLWFA provides a general picture of

wetland extent and function within a watershed that can be used to identify trends in wetland

condition and function, identify initial restoration locations, and form the basis of a wetland

inventory. Watershed planners in the Clinton River and other watersheds in Michigan have used

the LLWFA to develop criteria specific to their watersheds for prioritizing potential sites for

wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement. The approach planners in the Clinton River

watershed followed is discussed in subsection 4.1.3 below.

Monitoring and Long-Term Management

Following completion of the LLWFA and other natural resource assessments, the Commission

and partners made decisions about the strategies they were going to undertake to protect/restore

the integrity of the Paw Paw River watershed. These included plans to protect and restore

wetlands. The SWMPC and partners developed milestones for implementing their various

strategies and criteria for evaluating the success of their actions. The wetland-related strategies

developed are summarized in exhibit 18.



Source: Clinton River Watershed Council n.d.

Exhibit 18. Paw Paw River Watershed Management Plan Implementation Tasks Associated with Wetlands

Wetland–Related Tasks Implementation

Dates Milestones Evaluation Method(s)

Protect Wetlands 20092013 By 2015: 20 acres

By 2018: 80 acres

By 2023: 180 acres

•••• Number of acres protected

•••• Number of landowners protecting

wetlands

•••• Estimate pollutant loading reduction

Protect Sensitive Lands 20142018 By 2020: 200 acres

By 2023: 600 acres

By 2028: 1,400

acres


•••• Estimate pollutant load reduction

Restore Wetlands 20092013 By 2015: 80 acres

By 2018: 180 acres

By 2023: 240 acres

•••• Number of acres restored

•••• Number of landowners restoring

wetlands

•••• Estimate loading reduction

Protect Wetland Streambanks 20092013 By 2015: 120 acres

By 2018: 320 acres

By 2023: 720 acres


•••• Number of landowners protecting

wetlands

•••• Estimate pollutant load reduction Source: SWMPC 2008.

The milestones developed for wetlands and other natural features of the watershed serve as long-

term watershed goals. As individual projects are completed and their success evaluated, the

Commission and partners plan to reevaluate the watershed management plan to ensure that the

stated strategies for achieving watershed goals and objectives are still appropriate. The watershed

plan recommends that management and implementation plans be reviewed annually and that they

be evaluated against stated watershed goals and objectives at least every 5 to 10 years (SWMPC

2008).

4.1.3 Clinton River Watershed LLWFA and Restoration Prioritization

About the Watershed

The Clinton River watershed is in southeast

Michigan and spans 760 square miles across four

counties. The watershed is north of Detroit and

has high levels of urban development. The

Clinton River watershed has been listed as a Great

Lake Area of Concern (AOC)4 since the 1980s.

The AOC includes the entire watershed, as well as

a portion of Lake St. Clair immediately

downstream of the mouth of the Clinton River. The

4 AOCs are defined in the U.S. – Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as “geographic areas that fail to

meet the general or specific objectives of the agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause

impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to support aquatic life.” As part of the U.S. –Canada Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement, a Remedial Action Plan must be completed for the AOC through cooperation between

the U.S. and Canadian governments (GLIN 2005).



AOC has eight beneficial use impairments, which include restrictions on fish and wildlife

consumption, eutrophication or undesirable algae (in the lower river and inland lakes),

degradation of fish and wildlife populations, beach closings, degradation of aesthetics,

degradation of benthos, restriction of dredging activities, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat

(USEPA 2011a). The pollutants of concern in the watershed include conventional pollutants,

high fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients, high total dissolved solids, contaminated sediments

with heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and oil and grease.

Because of the Clinton River watershed’s status as an AOC, a Remedial Action Plan has been

completed. Local restoration criteria have been developed and approved by the Public Advisory

Committee to the AOC to address six of the eight beneficial use impairments. Efforts are

underway to further refine criteria for the fish and wildlife beneficial use impairments, including

degraded fish and wildlife populations and loss of habitat. Clinton River project priorities include

elimination of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and storm sewer overflows (SSOs); nonpoint

source control; Superfund waste site remediation; spill notification; habitat restoration; and

elimination of illicit connections and failing septic systems. Analysis of potential wetland

restoration projects is part of the Remedial Action Plan to help restore the watershed (USEPA

2011a).

Clinton River Watershed LLWFA

A base LLWFA was performed in the Clinton River watershed using data layers similar to those

used in the Paw Paw River watershed LLWFA. Analysis of the composite map revealed that

wetlands in the Clinton River watershed have decreased significantly since pre-settlement.

Specifically, the watershed has experienced an estimated loss of 150,457 acres of wetlands

between pre-settlement and 2005, with only 25 percent of the pre-settlement wetland acreage

remaining. The average size of wetlands also decreased from 30 acres during pre-settlement to 7

acres in 2005 (exhibit 19).

Exhibit 19. Clinton River Watershed Wetland Areas from Pre-Settlement to 2005

Note: Pre-settlement wetlands are shown in red, and remaining wetlands (2005) are shown in green. Source: Fizzell and Zbiciak n.d.



Prioritization of Wetland Restoration Areas

Exhibit 20 shows the various data layers composing the spatial map for the Clinton River

watershed. Note that beyond the layers used in the Paw Paw River watershed, zoning and parcel

layers were also added. The zoning layers were added to facilitate the determination of current

and future land uses, and the parcel layers were added to show land ownership. Those layers

were developed as part of the prioritization model discussed below. The incorporation of the

multiple layers in the spatial map component of the LLWFA allows researchers to consider

multiple factors that can affect a wetland restoration effort (Fizzell and Zbiciak n.d.).

Exhibit 20. Map Layers for Inclusion in Clinton River

Watershed Wetland Assessment

A soils/restoration analysis model was developed to accompany the GIS models and final dataset

generated by the LLWFA to assist watershed partners in selecting potential wetland restoration

sites within the Clinton River AOC (spatially the Oakland and Macomb County portions of the

watershed).

The model scores potential sites for the likelihood of implementing a successful long-term

wetland restoration using two sets of criteria: (1) wetland ecological integrity criteria and (2)

social and biological criteria. The wetland ecological integrity criteria are used to assess the

ability of a given site to be successfully restored and maintained as a functioning wetland. The

social and biological criteria are used to score sites for factors that may make restoration easier

or provide value added to a restored wetland (Schools n.d.). Exhibit 21 describes the

methodology used to select an initial group of potential restoration sites. This is followed by

exhibit 22, which lists the ecological and social/biological criteria and methodologies used to

refine the list of potential restoration sites.

Source: Fizzell and Zbiciak. n.d.



Exhibit 21. Site Selection Methodology in Clinton River AOC

Datasets/Models Used:

•••• MDEQ Michigan Restoration Analysis model1

•••• Michigan Framework V7 Road dataset provided by the Michigan Center for Geographic Information Spatial

Data Library2

Methodology: The Michigan Restoration Analysis model combines hydric soils data from the USDA’s SSURGO

database with data from Michigan’s circa 1800 wetlands database; it assigns scores of “1” to polygons that

coincide with hydric soils and circa 1800 wetlands. It assigns a “2” to polygons that coincide with only hydric soils,

and it assigns a “3” to polygons representing only circa 1800 wetlands. Clinton River analysts selected only

polygons assigned a “1” or a “2”. The analysts also limited their polygons to those representing an area of one acre

or more. Those polygons were then cut with a 66-foot buffer of the Michigan Framework V7 Road dataset. Once

the road buffer was removed, analysts selected those polygons greater than one acre with a restoration ranking of

“1” or “2” and having their centroid in Oakland and Macomb counties.

Results: Potential wetland restoration areas of 14,871 polygons ranging in size from one acre to 674 acres. 1MDEQ. 2008. Land and Water Management Division, Wetlands, Lakes and Streams Unit. Statewide Wetland Restoration Analysis,

(MI_RestorationAnalysis.shp). Unpublished material, vector digital data. Contact Chad Fizzell. 2

http://www.michigan.gov/cgi

Source: Schools n.d.

Exhibit 22. Ecological Integrity Criteria and Social and Biological Criteria Used to Score Potential Wetland

Restoration Sites in the Clinton River AOC

Criterion Assumptions, Datasets Used, Scoring Protocol, and Results

Ecological Criteria

Proximity to an

existing wetland

Assumption: A wetland restoration is more likely to be successfully implemented if it is

connected to, or located close to, an existing wetland. (If an existing wetland is already in

place, existing landscape condition such as intact hydrology, appropriate soil conditions,

and lack of drainage will be conducive to a successful restoration.)

Datasets Used: NWI for Macomb and Oakland counties

Scoring: Potential restoration sites within 200 feet of an existing wetland were given a

score of “1,” and sites within 100 feet were given a score of “2.”

Results: Out of 14,871 potential restoration sites, 8,604 (58%) were within 100 feet of a

wetland and 853 (6%) were over 100 feet but less than 200 feet from a wetland.

Proximity to a

waterway

Assumptions: A wetland restoration is more likely to be ecologically successful if it is

connected to, or located close to, an existing water body. It is easier to implement a

wetland restoration if the site intersects a ditch that can be blocked.

Dataset Used: NHD Gap dataset from the Institute for Fisheries Research at the University

of Michigan

Scoring: Sites within 100 feet of a stream feature were given a score of “1,” and sites that

intersected a canal or ditch were given a score of “2.”

Results: Out of the 14,871 potential sites, 3,353 (23%) were found to be within 100 feet of

a stream and 36 (less than 1%) were found to intersect a waterway feature.

Landscape context Assumption: A wetland restoration is more likely to achieve maximum wetland

functionality if it is buffered from anthropogenic stresses. In Michigan, wetland restoration

tends to occur most often on or within close proximity to agricultural lands as opposed to

natural lands or urban areas.

Datasets Used:

•••• 2000 IFMAP dataset from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The dataset is

a 30-meter raster derived from Thematic Mapper remote sensed imagery. It includes 26




Landscape context

continued

land cover types. For the purposes of the Clinton River model, the land cover types were

reclassified into three categories: urban, agricultural, and natural.

•••• Hawth’s Tools Thematic Raster Summary Tool to tabulate areas within polygons where

the polygons overlap (http://www.spatialecology.com/htools/tooldesc.php)

Scoring: Potential restoration sites with buffers containing less than 50 percent urban land

cover were given a score of “1.” Sites within buffers containing greater than 50 percent

agricultural land cover were assigned a score of “2,” and those sites with buffers greater

than or equal to 50 percent urban were given a score of zero.

Results: Of the 14,871 potential restoration sites, 2,465 (17%) had 50 percent or greater

agricultural lands in the 100 meter buffer and received a score of “2;” 9,567 sites (65%) had

less than 50 percent agricultural and less than 50 percent urban land in the buffer,

receiving a score of “1,” and 2,839 sites had 50 percent or greater urban land in the buffer,

receiving a score of zero.

Isolation from roads Assumption: Roads can block the natural flow of water across the landscape and can

hydrologically isolate wetlands. Runoff from roads can contaminate wetlands. A wetland

restoration will be better able to maintain wetland functionality if the restoration is

isolated from a road.

Dataset Used: Michigan Framework V7 Road dataset from Michigan’s Center for

Geographic Information Spatial Data Library (The potential restoration sites were

intersected with the 66-foot buffer of the dataset. The selection was then switched,

selecting those sites not intersecting the road buffer.)

Scoring: Potential restoration sites were scored one point for being isolated from a road.

Results: Of the 14,871 potential restoration sites, 5,410 (36%) were found to be isolated

from a road and given a score of “1.”

Proximity to historic

wetlands

Assumptions: See assumptions under “Site Selection” category above.

Dataset Used: MDEQ’s Michigan Restoration Analysis dataset

Scoring: To give additional emphasis to those potential sites where both hydric soils and

historic wetlands are present, the sites were scored a point. Potential sites based solely on

hydric soils were not assigned a score.

Results: Of the 14,871 potential restoration sites, 3,033 (20%) were found to be based on

both hydric soils and the presence of historic wetlands.

Social and Biological Criteria

Number of

landowners involved

Assumption: A wetland restoration is more likely to be implemented when the restorable

wetland is controlled by one landowner. The smaller the number of landowners involved,

the more likely the project is to occur.

Dataset Used: Parcel data supplied by counties (A limitation of parcel data is that multiple

parcels can be owned by the same person. To reduce bias against larger sites, analysts used

the ratio of the number of parcels intersecting a site to the area of the site (number of

parcels divided by the site area) as a scoring criterion. The smaller the ratio, the better.)

Scoring and Results: Of the 14,871 potential restoration sites, 1,818 (12%) were found to

have a ratio of less than 0.5 parcel per acre and were assigned a score of “1” and 2,594

potential sites (17%) were found to contain only one parcel and were assigned a score of

“2.”




Proximity to

protected areas

Assumption: A wetland restoration is more likely to be successfully implemented if it is

located on an already protected area versus an area under private ownership. (Areas that

are already protected also presumably have arrangements for their long-term

management, which is an important component to successful wetland restoration over the

long term.)

Dataset Used: Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) dataset of Ducks Unlimited and

The Nature Conservancy

Scoring: Potential restoration sites completely contained within one of the selected

protected areas was given a score of “2.” Potential sites that cross the boundary of a

selected protected area were given a score of “1.”

Results: Of the 14,871 potential restoration sites, 320 (2%) were found to be completely

contained within the boundaries of protected areas and 594 (4%) were found to intersect

the boundaries of protected areas.

Proximity to an

MDEQ conservation

easement for

wetland mitigations

Assumption: Potential restoration sites within or overlapping with an easement owned by

the state has greater likelihood to be restored.

Dataset Used: Easement boundaries supplied by MDEQ

Scoring: Sites were given a score of “2” if they were completely within the area of an MDEQ

conservation easement. Sites were assigned a score of “1” if they were found to cross the

boundary of an MDEQ easement.

Results: Of the 14,871 potential restoration sites, 459 (3%) were found to reside

completely within an MDEQ easement and 552 (3.7%) were found to intersect an

easement.

Location within a

headwaters area

Dataset Used: Stream drainages supplied by the Institute of Fisheries Research

(firstOrderReach Watersheds.shp). Only first order streams were selected.

Results: 9,960 (67%) of the 14,871 potential restoration sites were found to intersect a

headwater stream drainage.

Development threat Assumption: A wetland restoration is more likely to be successfully implemented if the

general area is not highly urbanized.

Dataset Used: U.S. Forest Service model dataset that contains projected housing densities

for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 in any given area (mi_pbg00.shp)

Selection: Potential restoration sites that are completely within polygons having a housing

density greater than zero and less than 0.25 units/acre.

Scoring: 5,944 (40%) of the 14,871 potential restoration sites met the criterion and were

given a score of “1.”

Presence of

significant biological

features

Assumed Value: Potential restoration sites that could enhance documented significant

natural features such as rare species habitat were desired over otherwise equivalent sites

not known to enhance rare species habitats.

Dataset Used: MNFI, which is a model based on the Natural Heritage database of rare

species and high quality natural communities. The model uses the known locations of rare

species and natural communities and scores areas based on species’ state and global

imperilment, the viability of each occurrence record, and the age of the species record. The

Clinton River analysts selected 160-acre test cells with a score of 25 or greater.

Results: 191 (1%) of the 14,871 potential restoration sites intersected the cells in the MNFI

model with a score greater than or equal to 25. These sites were given one point.

Source: Schools n.d.



The next step in the model is to prioritize the sites. The Clinton River wetland restoration

prioritization model plots site scores on separate axes in a Cartesian coordinate (XY) system,

thus dividing the scored sites into four quadrants as shown in exhibit 23. Sites with scores falling

into the upper right quadrant (high ecological and high social values) were considered to have

greater potential for restoration over sites with scores falling into the lower right quadrant (high

ecological value but lower social values) and upper left quadrant (lower ecological values but

high social values). Sites with scores in the lower left quadrant (lower ecological and social

values) were prioritized as having the least potential for restoration of sites identified (Fizzell and

Zbiciak n.d.; Schools n.d.).

Exhibit 23. Clinton River Watershed Restoration Prioritization Scoring

Source: Fizzell and Zbiciak n.d.

Each potential restoration site could score up to eight points on the ecological axis and up to nine

points on the social/biological axis. Seven was the highest score achieved by a potential wetland

restoration site on either axis. Of the 14,871 potential sites, 2,331 (16 percent) scored five or

higher on the ecological axis and 1,039 (7 percent) scored five or higher on the social axis.

The model was designed so the user can select the thresholds for each set of criteria that

determine the highest priority sites for the user’s watershed. MDEQ personnel used the model to

select potential restoration sites for the Clinton River AOC. MDEQ used thresholds of “5” for

the ecological criteria and “5” for the social criteria to arrive at an initial selection of 43 high-

priority sites. Agency personnel then used additional criteria, such as single land ownership in

conjunction with a desktop review of aerial photographs, to narrow the list of 43 to six (Schools

n.d.).

0 8

0

9



Summary

The LLWFA was used to identify the location, condition, and extent of wetlands and their

functions in the AOC portion of the Clinton River watershed. LLWFA results were further

refined by use of a wetlands prioritization model. That model enabled MDEQ to refine its list of

potential wetland restoration sites in the AOC using ecological and social/biological criteria.

Both assessment procedures are desktop-based and do not require site visits, which reduces

assessment costs. Once the number of potential restoration sites is limited, more intensive site

assessments and visits can be performed. Based on the design of MDEQ’s LLWFA and

prioritization model, the final selection of sites included only those that were historically wetland

but are not currently wetland, do not include buildings or roads, and have single or limited land

ownership. The strategy of the Clinton River AOC partners would be to restore the hydrology of

those sites.

4.1.4 Conclusion

Thus far, multiple watersheds across Michigan have found innovative ways to use the LLFWA

(USEPA 2008). Planners in the Black River watershed in Allegan and Van Buren counties have

used the LLWFA and incorporated it into watershed planning. The watershed coordinators have

implemented analyses on the connections between inland lakes and wetland resources. They

have also created a prioritization process meant to inform decision making on the site selection

of wetland restoration projects (Fuller 2005).

Another example of how the LLWFA can be incorporated into the watershed planning effort is

in the Gun River watershed. The watershed coordinators for this project used the LLWFA in

combination with their local knowledge of landowners to prioritize wetland restoration efforts

down to actual properties using parcel data. They then met with local landowners to gauge their

interest in completing a wetland restoration project on their property, assisting interested

landowners with the procedural aspects of working through the various requirements of

state/federal restoration programs (Wetland Reserve Programs, Partners for Fish and Wildlife,

etc.) to help address the needs of the overall watershed (FTC&H 2004).

For Further Information contact Chad Fizzell or Rob Zbiciak of Michigan’s Department

of Environmental Quality. Mr. Fizzell can be reached at (517) 335-6928 or

[email protected], and Mr. Zbiciak can be reached at (517) 241-9021 or

[email protected].



Limited NWI Coverage in Some States

In some regions of the country, the NWI

database contains limited wetland coverages.

Researchers therefore need to overlay other

data sources with NWI data to identify a more

comprehensive universe of existing and former

wetlands. Researchers often use aerial

photographs as a means to identify existing and

future sites along with data on soils and

hydrology. After initial assessments are

completed, promising sites can be visited

wherein more detailed assessments of soils,

vegetation, and hydrology can be made.

Development of Virginia’s Wetland Restoration

Catalog involved the creation of wetland

prediction models based on such data

integration efforts.

Source: Weber and Bulluck 2010.

4.2 Virginia’s Catalog of Known and Predicted Wetlands

This case study presents an approach the state of Virginia has developed in a pilot watershed to

identify wetlands in a watershed context that are suitable for wetland restoration, creation, or

enhancement based on the functions and services they provide. The resultant product is a

catalog that can be used to help applicable entities select potential wetland mitigation sites

under the CWA section 404 program. The intent of the pilot was to provide a foundation upon

which a catalog for the entire state could be developed for use in multiple water quality contexts.

4.2.1 Overview

In 2006, the Virginia Department of

Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Natural

Heritage Program (VNHP) developed the

Virginia Wetland Restoration Catalog (VWRC).

This statewide effort originated with a request

from the Virginia Department of Transportation

(VDOT) for VNHP to identify the “best places

for wetland restoration in a particular VDOT

district.” The purpose of the catalog was to

provide VDOT with a tool for identifying

potential wetlands mitigation sites that harbored

rare plant and animal populations as well as

exemplary rare natural community types. The

original catalog identified 122 potential wetland

restoration sites, which were generally situated

near Natural Heritage Conservation Sites. VNHP

researchers identified the potential restoration sites by analyzing Natural Heritage data, aerial

photography, NWI data, and other GIS datasets (Weber and Bulluck 2010). (See sidebar on NWI

coverages.)

In 2010, VNHP scientists conducted a pilot study in the Pamunkey River watershed (described

below). The aim of the pilot was to expand the

methodology developed for the initial VWRC and

create a methodology that is flexible, repeatable

in other watersheds and states, and easy to follow.

VNHP is poised to expand the methodology

statewide and for use in other water quality

contexts once project funding is secured (Bulluck

2011, personal communication).

4.2.2 Pamunkey River Watershed

The Pamunkey River watershed, in eastern

Virginia, covers 411 square miles and consists of

11 subwatersheds (Weber and Bulluck 2010).

The Pamunkey River flows southeast before



merging with the Mattaponi River to form the York River, which ultimately discharges to the

Chesapeake Bay.

Designated uses are not being attained in streams in this watershed due to pH imbalances,

dissolved oxygen levels, and the presence of Escherichia coli (E. coli), and thus most streams in

the watershed are listed as impaired waters under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Aquatic

life uses are also not being attained for benthic macroinvertebrates.

4.2.3 Virginia Wetland Catalog Components

Scientists at VNPH integrated input data layers from multiple data sources—most of which are

publicly available at no cost—into one GIS layer and output map, which is in turn linked with a

full attribute table of input data. The input data layers consisted of either wetland source data or

priority sources, as summarized in exhibit 24. Wetland source data were used to identify all

wetlands on the ground, beyond those in the NWI. Identification of wetlands not included in the

NWI required a preliminary modeling step, which made use of data in the NHD dataset, FEMA’s

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), and the NRCS’s SSURGO. This model output,

and quality control (QC)/verification using aerial photography, identified many wetland areas not

indicated in the NWI coverage. The output, plus the NWI, provided the wetlands and streams

base layers to which the prioritization was applied. All wetland areas in the Pamunkey watershed

(NWI and modeled) were then prioritized using a basic suite of input datasets that rank the

integrity of lands and waters, from ecological and water quality standpoints.

Exhibit 24. Wetland Source and Priority Source Layers Used in the Virginia Wetland Catalog

Wetland Sources

Layer Source Description

National Wetlands

Inventory

USFWS Shows the extent of wetlands, surface

waters and deepwater habitats in terms of

type and function.

National Hydrography

Dataset

USGS Shows position and flow direction of lakes,

ponds, streams, rivers, canals and oceans.

Digital Flood Insurance

Rate Map (DFIRM)

Database

FEMA in the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security

Shows 100-year and 500-year floodplains

with zone designations.

Soil Survey Geographic

Database

NRCS in the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA)

Shows soils classified as hydric or partially

hydric with indicators of hydric conditions.

Prioritization Sources

Natural Heritage Priority

Conservation Sites

(NHPCS)

VDCR/VNHP Shows areas of known high biodiversity and

the degree to which those places are

protected. Includes high-quality natural

environments.

Virginia Natural Landscape

Assessment (VaNLA)

VDCR/VNHP Identifies, prioritizes, and links natural

habitats. Uses land cover data to identify

natural habitats that are not fragmented.

Ecological integrity is also represented.



Prioritization Sources continued

Regional Internet Bank

Information Tracking

System (RIBITS)

USACE An Internet-based tracking system for

wetland mitigation banking.

Impaired Waters of

Virginia

Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

Shows waters that do not meet water

quality standards in accordance with CWA

section 303(d) list requirements.

Healthy Waters of Virginia VDCR Shows streams that are considered

ecologically healthy based on data collected

on aquatic species, instream habitat,

condition of banks, and condition of buffer

areas.

Farmed Wetlands VDCR/VNHP Shows lands that were likely prior-

converted wetlands based on agricultural

land cover data and wetland data.


Researchers subsequently assigned weights to the priority data layers to derive an overall ranking

of a wetland’s relative value for mitigation within the watershed. Weights were assigned to the

priority layers on a scale of 1 to 5 with “1” being the least important/least valuable and “5” being

the most important or valuable (Weber and Bulluck 2010). Those weights were assigned with

full transparency so that any user of the catalog’s outputs could manipulate weights (i.e.,

influence outputs such that different types of mitigation sites would be highlighted in the output

map). In this pilot, weights were assigned as follows: the Natural Heritage Priority Conservation

Sites were ranked from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) based on Biodiversity Site score. Core habitat

areas from the VaNLA carried 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) weights based on various factors,

including habitat core size, length of interior streams, abundance of wetlands, diversity of

wetland types, and known presence of rare species. Areas in the landscape corridors portion of

the VaNLA were all weighted “1,” and sites in RIBITS, the CWA section 303(d) impaired

waters dataset, healthy waters dataset, and farmed wetlands dataset were all weighted “3.” A

collective mitigation priority ranking was then calculated for each site, and the sites were ranked

based on the sum of their weights for all priority layers on a final 1-to-5 point scale (Weber and

Bulluck 2010). Exhibit 25 is a map of the streams and wetland areas ranked by their collective

priority scores.



Exhibit 25: Pamunkey River Watershed Wetland Priorities

To add practical value to outputs, each priority mitigation area was intersected with land

ownership parcels, so that users of the catalog could easily see (through the output map and the

output data table) the parcel-specific contribution to a particular mitigation opportunity (Weber

and Bulluck 2010). Exhibit 26 is a map of the parcels, prioritized by their potential to contribute

to mitigation efforts on the wetlands and streams they harbor.

Exhibit 26: Pamunkey River Watershed Wetland Priorities by Parcel

4.2.4 The Results

The outputs of the pilot study included GIS outputs and maps of prioritized wetlands and streams

where mitigation opportunities exist in the Pamunkey River watershed. The GIS outputs include

a full attribute table that delivers all input data for all priority areas identified in the analysis.

Indeed, this output table offers the most useful study outputs. Users can include additional data

in the analysis, remove certain datasets, and/or alter the weights assigned to all prioritization

layers, and thereby run their own analyses, leading to output maps that focus on the aspects of

wetlands they find most valuable. For example, a user might like to elevate weights for all

wetlands and streams with rare species conservation values, so that those opportunities are

highest ranked in output maps. Or, one might prefer to adjust weights to select for CWA section

303(d) streams and associated wetlands to highlight restoration opportunities. Alternatively, one





could elevate the weights for healthy waters, so that that those conservation opportunities are

highlighted in the map. Project outputs also included systematic instructions on how to apply the

methods used in other areas of Virginia (Weber and Bulluck 2010). This straightforward,

practical approach could be employed by researchers in other states using the same national and

analogous state level datasets.

4.2.5 Summary

VNHP is ready to expand the methodology statewide, enhance it with updated input data and

modify it for alternative water quality purposes. For example, VNHP staff envision adding

certain additional input layers to lead to outputs that more finely “tease apart” the best potential

opportunities for restoration versus creation, versus preservation, versus enhancement. This

could be accomplished with a similarly undemanding approach that incorporates available

datasets, which more thoroughly identify the following:

•••• A biological health assessment of all stream reaches and watersheds in Virginia

(Only exceptional waters were incorporated into the pilot study.)

•••• All Virginia surface waters based on water quality tier

•••• CWA section 303(d) impaired waters

•••• CWA section 319 watersheds

•••• Updated parcel-level conserved lands with biodiversity management intent and legal

protection status classifications

•••• The Nature Conservancy’s forest matrix blocks

•••• 2012 updates to all other inputs as available

•••• Others, as appropriate

In this pilot, analyses of 2009 high-resolution aerial photography were used to QC modeled

wetland finds. In a statewide approach, VNHP inventory biologists will ground-truth the results

of the wetland prediction model and the prioritization of mitigation opportunity areas through

field visits to assess wetland presence (via wetland soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of

wetland hydrology), wetland habitat value, and wetland function.

For Further Information contact Jason Bulluck, Natural Heritage Information Manager,

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation at (804) 786-8377 or Jason.bulluck@dcr.

virginia.gov.



Local Variables

• Hydrologic regime

• Vegetative character

• Soil character

• Topography

Landscape Variables

• Overland flow distance

• Attainment of aquatic life use

standards in adjacent streams

Source: White and Fennessy 2005.

Source: CRCPO n.d.

4.3 Assessing Wetland Restoration Potential for the Cuyahoga River Watershed (Ohio)

This case study presents an approach to identify a suite of sites and then predict their suitability

for wetland restoration for the Cuyahoga River watershed in northern Ohio. The prediction

model was aimed at prioritizing wetlands sites that, if restored, would enhance water resource

integrity or the ability of the watershed to meet CWA goals for the support of aquatic life (White

and Fennessy 2005).

4.3.1 Watershed Description

The Cuyahoga River watershed spans 813 square miles and

drains 1,220 miles of streams across four counties in

northeastern Ohio. The Cuyahoga River changes direction,

flowing south before flowing north into Lake Erie near

Cleveland (Fennessy et al. 2007).

The Upper Cuyahoga River watershed has a large number of

high-quality and intact wetlands, a large portion of which are

owned by the City of Akron. Land use in the upper basin is

primarily agricultural. This portion of the watershed is known

for having a large number of rare and listed plant and animal

species. The Middle Cuyahoga watershed is predominately

suburban and urban with some agriculture. Soils are considered highly erodible, making

sediment and nutrient loadings an issue for water quality. The Lower Cuyahoga watershed is

highly urbanized with industrial and urban development. Construction site runoff, industrial and

municipal point sources, CSOs, and land disposal of waste are all threats to water quality in the

Lower Cuyahoga watershed (Fennessy et al. 2007).

4.3.2 Cuyahoga River Watershed Assessment Components

Researchers first used a modeling approach to identify the

spatial distribution of sites most suited for wetland

restoration. They assigned scores to six variables known

to influence wetland restoration (see sidebar). Each grid

(i.e., at a 25 meter cell resolution) in the study area (entire

Cuyahoga River watershed) was assigned a score for each

criterion. The relative importance of each of the criteria

was then weighted using best professional judgment. The

relative importance of pairs of criteria were then rated

using a nine point scale (White and Fennessy 2005).

Researchers selected variables for the model on two

spatial scales: (1) using local parameters or those that

define wetland properties or form and (2) using landscape parameters or those that best

characterize wetland function. Each of the local and landscape variables was scaled based on

presence or absence. For example, if hydric soils were not present in a site (grid cell), it was



Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment

in the Cuyahoga River

• Restrictions on fish and wildlife

consumption

• Degradation of fish and wildlife

populations

• Beach closings

• Fish tumors or other deformities

• Degradation of aesthetics

• Degradation of benthos

• Restriction on dredging activities

• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat

Source: USEPA 2011b.

excluded and if land use classes for a site were urban, water, or transportation, the site was

excluded (White and Fennessy 2005).

Researchers used five additional criteria related to wetland form and function. Strahler stream

order and overland flow length (i.e., distance from each grid cell to the nearest stream channel)

were used to represent watershed position. Topographic-based saturation index and land

use/cover type, after excluding urban, water and transportation uses, were used to determine the

suitability of a given site (grid cell) to support a wetland (e.g., whether wetland hydrology could

develop). Water quality impairments were included to enable prioritization of sites for

restoration. Sites with a higher proportion of stream segments not meeting water quality

standards have a higher potential to benefit from wetland restoration (White and Fennessy 2005).

Water quality use attainment is of particular concern

in the Cuyahoga River watershed because eight

beneficial uses are considered impaired due to

cultural eutrophication (nutrients), toxic substances

(PCBs and heavy metals), bacterial contamination,

habitat modification, and sedimentation. The sources

of these contaminants vary but include municipal and

industrial discharges, bank erosion, commercial/

residential development, atmospheric deposition,

hazardous waste disposal sites, urban stormwater

runoff, combined sewer overflows, and wastewater

treatment plant (WWTP) bypasses (USEPA 2011b).

Researchers developed three different variations of

the model depicting restoration potential by altering the weights assigned to the five parameters

described above. The three model variations generated were (1) base model, (2) alternative

weights model, and (3) transmissivity variation model.

4.3.3 The Results

The base model identified potential wetland restoration sites in the watershed based on

estimating land suitability by averaging data layers with no adjustments or priorities established.

In the base model, few areas scored in the top restoration potential category (White and Fennessy

2005). Those that did were areas located in the headwaters of subwatersheds. The highest density

of sites was found in the upper northeastern peninsula of the watershed (Geauga County).

Researchers posited that this was due to land use in the area being primarily agricultural, water

quality being impaired, and hydric soils being present (White and Fennessy 2005).

Researchers developed two different variations of the suitability (base) model depicting

restoration potential by altering the weights or calculations for the functionality criteria described

above. In one analysis, more weight was given to aquatic life use attainment and stream order

(alternative weights variation). As a result, a greater number of high-restoration-potential sites

were identified downstream in rapidly urbanizing areas, such as Akron and Cleveland. In a

second sensitivity analysis, researchers examined the inclusion of soil permeability in the

topographic saturation index to account for the drainage potential of soils (transmissivity



variation). Researchers found an inverse relationship between transmissivity (i.e., horizontal

water flow in an aquifer per unit of time) and soil “wetness.” That is, as transmissivity increased,

soil wetness decreased. Few sites with low soil wetness or high transmissivity scored in the high

restoration potential category (White and Fennessy 2005).

An examination of the similarities of the three model runs showed similar distributions of

wetlands but differences in many of the restoration potential values within a grid cell. All three

models allocated a high restoration potential to the northeastern peninsula portion of the

watershed (i.e., the area with low water quality, a high proportion of hydric soils, and low levels

of urbanization). Overall, the analyses highlight the significance of variation of model inputs on

model output (White and Fennessy 2005).

Researchers also examined the spatial patterns of the three models and their relationships to the

local and landscape variables and the five-factor criteria. They found that sites that meet state

standards for supporting aquatic life tend to dominate the distribution of sites with high

restoration potential in the three models. Conversely, the distribution of overland flow length

was found to have a very low influence on model results. Researchers suggest that the overland

flow length criterion might have greater influence on model outcomes in watersheds with less

articulated stream networks. In such watersheds, the criterion could be used to help identify sites

with the highest potential downstream benefits (White and Fennessy 2005).

4.3.4 Summary

The model developed for the Cuyahoga River watershed, like others discussed in this

Supplement, could be adapted for use in other watersheds. Toward this end, the Cuyahoga

researchers generalized the model into two phases—a resource phase and an application phase

(exhibit 27). The first phase involves the identification of the broad expanse of sites to

investigate. The second phase involves the selection of a subset of sites having high restoration

potential using criteria developed to achieve the stated watershed goal(s), which, in the case of

the Cuyahoga, was to improve water resource integrity. For the purposes of the investigation,

researchers defined water resource integrity as the ability of a lotic system to meet CWA goals

for the support of aquatic life (White and Fennessy 2005). Researchers in other watersheds might

have different goals, such as the restoration of hydrologic integrity or the addition of certain

types of habitat, and they could modify the weighting of the model’s factors accordingly.



Exhibit 27. Two–Phase Model Description

Resource Phase

• Soil properties (e.g., hydric, percent organic matter, permeability)

• Proximity to other wetlands (e.g., seed banks of hydrophytic vegetation)

• Topographic properties (e.g., concavity and flow accumulation)

• Existing land use and land cover

• Existence of an appropriate hydrology (saturation index)

• Land ownership (in terms of availability)

Application Phase

•••• Land ownership (in terms of cost to purchase)

•••• Connectivity of landscape patches

•••• Size (as a minimum area) and contiguity of adjacent land use types

•••• Overall wetland quality desired

For Further Information contact Dr. M. Siobhann Fennessy, Associate Professor of

Biology and Environmental Studies, Kenyon College, at (740) 427-5455 or fennessym@

kenyon.edu.



4.4 Alternative Futures Analysis (AFA) of Farmington Bay Wetlands in the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem (Utah)

This case study presents another method for assessing wetlands in a watershed context and

prioritizing those for restoration. In this approach, researchers modeled future scenarios based

on the stated goals and objectives of watershed groups and other stakeholders using landscape

and site-level scientific data in a geospatially explicit format. Study outcomes are intended to

help environmental managers envision future conditions of wetlands under varying cumulative

management practices. The information can assist environmental managers and others in

making informed land and resource use decisions. The approach and tools used in the

Farmington Bay study could readily be tested in other communities in the Great Salt Lake Basin

and could be adapted for use elsewhere in the country.

4.4.1 Purpose and Overview

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (Sumner et al. 2010) conducted an AFA of

Farmington Bay wetlands in the Great Salt Lake (GSL) Ecosystem. The Bay is located northwest

of Salt Lake City, Utah, and includes parts of Salt Lake and Davis counties. The Farmington Bay

wetlands provide essential habitat for migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, and waterbirds from the

Pacific and Central Flyways of North America, and the wetlands help control excess nutrient

pollution to the bay. The greatest threats to

the wetlands are upland development,

increased pollutant loadings, and changes

in freshwater availability. Average annual

population is expected to increase in the

area roughly two percent between 2005 and

2020.

EPA’s aim in conducting the study was to

develop a method of forecasting and

quantifying the cumulative effect of

management practices on wetland

ecosystem services. The scope of the study

was limited to assessing the wetlands’

support for biodiversity (avian habitat, in

particular) and ability to retain, recover, and

remove nutrients. One underlying premise of the study was that “project-by-project review by

communities leaves too little time and money for regulatory, conservation and development to

adequately plan and assess land and water use. Monitoring is frequently inadequate to reveal

problems or trigger corrective actions.” (Sumner et al. 2010). A landscape-level approach,

however, enables stakeholders to consider and adopt explicit ecosystem management goals for

wetlands (or other natural resources) in the context of a larger watershed. The goals are

developed through an open community process and form the initial boundaries around which

alternative futures are examined.

Source: Sumner et al. 2010.



4.4.2 AFA Approach

The AFA was developed by Carl Steinitz in 1990 as a planning framework to help communities

consider options for managing land and water use (Steinitz 1990). The approach helps

communities articulate their visions for the future and understand the consequences of different

land and water management decisions. The AFA generates a collection of alternative landscape

design scenarios for a geographical area. In particular (Sumner et al. 2010):

•••• The AFA illustrates the scenarios on maps by showing future land use.

•••• The trend scenarios show future land use based on assumed implementation of current

day management practices into the future.

•••• Conservation-based scenarios depict future land use based on assumed implementation of

a plausible set of innovative protection, restoration, and treatment practices.

•••• Once the scenarios are developed, they are modeled and evaluated against a set of

ecological endpoints or outcomes. (The Farmington Bay study specifically focused on the

ecological outcomes of water quality and avian habitat use as forecasts of ecosystem

services.)

An AFA is aimed at answering some of the same fundamental questions outlined in EPA’s

Watershed Planning Handbook. The specific questions posed in the Farmington Bay study

included the following (Sumner et al. 2010):

1. How should the landscape be described?

2. How does the landscape operate?

3. By what actions might the current representation of the landscape be altered?

4. How does one judge whether the current state of the landscape is working well?

5. What predictable differences might the changes cause?

Answers to questions 1, 2, and 4 help investigators establish baseline conditions for a watershed

management plan. Answers to questions 3 to 5 can be used in the watershed planning process to

develop an implementation strategy. Those two specific questions allow for integration of

wetlands and wetland restoration into the watershed planning process. To complete use of the

AFA, the design questions are reordered and discussed. This sets the stage for a second iteration

of the AFA, which can be performed by environmental managers and community stakeholders.

4.4.3 Land Use Scenarios, Wetland System Templates, and Ecosystem Service Models

In the Farmington Bay study, the project team used models to evaluate a set of five scenarios—

one to reflect current landscape settings (2003) and four to provide alternative visions of the

future based on land use projections to the year 2030. The five scenarios are called the Current

Scenario 2003, Future Scenarios, Plan Trend 2030 Scenarios, Conservation 2030 Scenarios, and

2030 Lake Level Rise Scenarios. The Current Scenario 2003 was developed to serve as a

baseline for measuring the cumulative effects of land use and water use change, as predicted for

each future scenario. A common set of urban growth and water use/availability projections were



applied in each of the future scenarios. The wetland and habitat management assumptions used

in each of those scenarios, however, varied. The Plan Trend 2030 Scenarios characterized the

future landscape under two different water level elevations for the Great Salt Lake. Each of the

Plan Trend Scenarios assumed that currently enacted policies and development and conservation

trends would continue into the future. The Conservation 2030 Scenarios were based on the same

land use and water use assumptions as presented in the Plan Trend Scenario; however, the 2030

Scenario designated certain wetlands as priorities for conservation and restoration. The

Conservation Scenarios identified all natural wetlands below 4,217 feet as critical lands for

protection and restoration and assumed that there would be no net loss in the quantity and quality

of wetlands above 4,217 feet in elevation (i.e., within the shorelands area of Farmington Bay,

between 4,217 feet and 4,230 feet in elevation) (Sumner et al. 2010).

The 2030 Lake Level Rise Scenarios involved the overlay of the effects of a lake level rise to

4,212 feet onto the Plan Trend and Conservation Scenarios using FEMA flood assessment GIS

data and digital elevation model data and allowed researchers to evaluate wetland acreage

change resulting from higher lake water levels (Sumner et al 2010). Additional design features

for each of the five scenarios briefly described above are provided in exhibit 28a.

In addition to the scenarios, researchers also developed three study templates designed to

represent “typical” landscape patches (i.e., functional units of the landscape) common across the

Farmington Bay shorelands. The purpose of the templates was to evaluate how different classes

of wetland patches along the shorelands would respond to the management practices assumed in

the five scenarios. The name of each template corresponds to the dominant class of wetland

within the template—Impoundment Template, Fringe/Emergent Template, and Playa Template

(Sumner et al 2010). Exhibit 28b further describes design aspects of the templates.

Researchers also developed ecosystem services and evaluation models as part of the Farmington

Bay AFA. They focused specifically on two ecosystem services: support for avian habitat and

control of excess nutrients and pollutants. The two services were selected in response to

perceived community concerns and values associated with wetland ecosystems. Further details

regarding the two ecosystem models are provided in exhibit 28c.

4.4.4 Results

Through the study, researchers determined that the Conservation Futures model would protect

the most wetland acreage and highest category of suitable avian habitat. In contrast, the model

based on implementation of current day management practices (Current Scenario 2003)

predicted declines in the highest class of suitable avian habitat. Researchers further found that

both management scenarios predicted that future loadings of nutrients to the watershed would

increase due to point source discharges.

The Farmington Bay study included an assessment of restoration opportunities in the watershed.

Wetlands with high restoration potential were those identified as meeting the following spatial

criteria:

•••• Must intersect a 30-meter buffer around conveyances because of a conveyance’s ability

to deliver managed flows to the wetland. (Conveyances are manmade structures designed

to carry water, such as canals and drainage ditches.)



•••• Must contain all-hydric soils because they are an indicator of areas containing existing

wetlands or suitable for restoration.

•••• Must possess interior habitat of at least 30 meters from a wetland edge (i.e., areas with no

major roads, train tracks, power lines, or developed structures).

•••• Must not be seasonally flooded lacustrine, nonvegetated wetlands that are typically found

below 4,200 feet.

Researchers also assessed the presence of public or private lands. Public lands (i.e., lands owned

by federal, state, and local governments) provide the most immediate opportunity for

conservation or restoration activities as there would likely be fewer barriers for obtaining the

wetlands. For the purposes of the analysis, public lands also included lands owned by non-

governmental organizations; and private lands included all categories of private ownership.

4.4.5 Summary

Although there were some limitations in the availability of Farmington Bay wetland monitoring

and assessment data, the overall approach and GIS-based evaluation models that were used

provided useful future predictions regarding potential impacts to wetland areas that could support

decision making. The AFA provides a transparent means for organizing and communicating

complex scientific information to a diverse group of stakeholders and improving communication

among stakeholders (Sumner et al. 2010).

This assessment approach provides watershed groups with information on tools they can use to

predict what a watershed, including its wetlands, would look like in the future depending on the

criteria used for land use management. Watershed groups and local and other decision makers

can incorporate this information into watershed plans and develop proactive approaches to

addressing water quality problems, altered hydrology, and habitat fragmentation or destruction.

For Further Information contact Richard Sumner, Regional Liaison to EPA National

Wetlands Program, Western Ecology Division, EPA Office of Research and Development at

(541) 754-4444 or [email protected].



Exhibit 28a. Current and Future Scenarios under AFA of Farmington Bay Wetlands

Information in this exhibit was directly excerpted from Sumner et al. 2010.

Current Scenario Future Scenarios

2003

2030 Plan Trends 2030 Conservation Trends

Plan Trend 4,200 (characterizes future

landscape under GSL

water elevation of

4,200 feet)

Plan Trend 4,212 (characterizes future

landscape under GSL

highest water elevation of

4,212 feet)

Conservation Trend

4,200

(characterizes future

landscape under GSL

water elevation of 4,200

feet)

Conservation Trend

4,212 (characterizes future

landscape under GSL

highest water elevation of

4,212 feet)

Baseline for measuring

cumulative effects of

land use and water use

change as predicted for

each future scenario.

Information in the

baseline

characterization

include:

•••• Water availability

estimates

•••• Annual estimates

of ground and

surface water

withdrawals

•••• Point source

discharge data

•••• Dam flows and

irrigation canal

flows

•••• Annual estimates

of water imported

via Davis

Aqueduct

•••• Flows and

concentrations of

nutrients in

effluent from

point sources

•••• Assumes current policies and conservation trends

will continue.

•••• Wetlands below 4,212 feet in elevation were

presumed safe from development.

•••• Based on projected population growth, land use

change, increase in flow delivery and nutrient

loads, and a decrease in the quantity of upland

wetlands.

•••• Wetlands and associated habitat above 4,212 feet

in elevation were removed from land use data

layer.

•••• Wetlands between 4,212 and 4,217 feet were

assumed to be at risk from land conversion; they

were converted to upland land use in scenarios.

FEMA has set 4,217 feet as the critical elevation

line for planning around Farmington Bay.

Development below this line poses risks to

property, persons and structures as lake levels rise

and recede. Assumption made that counties

adhere to no build zones less than 4,217 feet.

•••• Design assumption is that lost wetlands will be

replaced with a mix of low-density development

and parks.

•••• Design assumption that current extent of invasive

plant, Phragmites, will increase by a perimeter

rate of 5 meters per year based on studied

perimeter expansion rates by other researchers.

•••• Lake level rise to 4,212 feet was taken into

account (simulation allowed for an evaluation of

wetland acreage levels).

•••• Uses same land use and water use assumptions as in

Plan Trend scenarios.

•••• Scenarios differ from Plan Trend scenarios in that

certain wetlands are designated for conservation and

restoration.

•••• All natural wetlands below 4,217 feet are identified

as critical lands for protection and restoration.

•••• Scenario assumes no net loss in the quantity and

quality of wetlands above 4,217 feet elevation within

the shorelands area (4,217 to 4,230 feet in elevation).

•••• Provisions are included for restoration of wetlands

and associated habitat in the shorelands area to

offset wetland degradation and conversion.

•••• Assessment of potential restoration opportunity was

performed to identify areas suitable for restoration;

these provide resource capacity needed to sustain

the no net loss design.

•••• Lake level rise to 4,212 feet was taken into account

(simulation allowed for an evaluation of wetland

acreage levels).

Data sources for all four future scenarios:

•••• Land use projection data from Salt Lake and Davis Counties. Adjustments were made using proposed changes

presented by the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan.

•••• Water availability based on flow return projections from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), groundwater

discharge, municipal and industrial discharges, inputs from canal diversions and other withdrawals.

•••• Future projected flow estimates for Salt Lake County WWTPs and an additional facility in Riverton from County.

•••• Future projected flow estimates for Davis County based on population projections from Central Davis Sewer

District 2008 Operating Budget.



Exhibit 28b. Wetland Type Study Templates under AFA of Farmington Bay Wetlands


Study Templates

Impoundment Template Fringe/Emergent Template Playa Template •••• Impoundments are critical for controlling

high flows, administering water rights

allocations, and managing habitat for

migratory waterfowl.

•••• Template is a 2,230-acre wetland

complex consisting of a string of several

diked units.

•••• The major conveyance of water is the

Ambassador Cut.

•••• Flows to the Ambassador Cut are first

subjected to dams, diversions, and

wetlands.

•••• Template is a large, 10,922-acre complex

of wetlands located on the eastern shore

of Farmington Bay.

•••• Comprised mainly of lacustrine wetland

types on the southwestern edge of the

template.

•••• Upslope, the fringe template becomes

dominated by emergent class wetlands.

•••• Three major water conveyances to

template include Baird Creek, Holmes

Creek, and Kays Creek.

•••• The Central Davis Sewer District is

located at the outflow of Baird Creek into

the Farmington Bay wetlands.

•••• Also located in template is the 4,000-acre

Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve.

•••• The template is a 1,167-acre wetland

complex located in the northwest

corner of Salt Lake County.

•••• The major conveyances of water to the

template are the North Pointe

Consolidated Canal and the Goggin

Drain. Both structures carry diverted

water from the Jordan River and flow

into the GSL at the Kennecott

Mitigation wetlands.

•••• The Goggin Drain carries natural

drainage and surplus water spilled

from canals.

•••• Playa class wetlands in the template

are shallow depressional systems that

have highly variable hydric periods.

They fluctuate from dry and wet

throughout the entire year. They can

be vegetated or nonvegetated.

•••• The wetlands in the template are

managed by the Inland Sea Shorebird

Preserve. Water level fluctuation

within the wetlands is controlled to

support their use by migratory

shorebirds and waterbirds.

Exhibit 28c. Ecosystem Service Models under AFA of Farmington Bay Wetlands


Ecosystem Service Models

Avian Wetland Habitat Assessment Model (AWHA) ArcView–enabled, Generalized Watershed Loading

Function (AVGWLF) Model •••• The profiles provide a means of tallying and reporting the

abundance of wetland classes within a defined area. The theory

behind profiles is that the abundance, distribution and condition

of wetlands in the landscape reflect the broad scale of processes

that sustain ecosystems (Sumner et al. 2010,Bedford 1996,

Bedford 1998, Gwin 1999, and Johnson 2005). Those same

processes factor into the delivery of ecosystem services.

•••• The developed profiles provide a coarse index of wetland

support for avian habitat, one of the key ecosystem services

provided by the Farmington Bay wetlands.

•••• The model is GIS–based.

•••• The model produces a habitat index that predicts the change in

the highest class of suitable habitat available for each bird

grouping under conditions set by the future scenarios defined as

part of the AFA as opposed to indicating the presence or

absence of a species.

See Sumner et al. 2010 for further details on development of the

model.

•••• The objective of the exercise was to build understanding about

the risks posed by the delivery of pollutants to wetlands and avian

habitat.

•••• The AVGWLF is based on the Generalized Watershed Loading

Function (GWLF) Model originally developed by Haith and

Shoemaker in 1987 in New York to simulate runoff, sediment and

nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loadings from a watershed

with various land uses, soil distributions, and management

practices.

•••• The AVGWLF was developed by Dr. Barry Evans (2008) at

Pennsylvania State University for use by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection. It has been used by

state and federal agencies for simulating watershed processes

and allocating pollutant loadings among various sources.

•••• The final calibrated model allowed the outputs of water flow,

sediment, and nutrients being delivered to the Farmington Bay

wetlands from the various sources through the watershed to be

simulated. This information on present-day loading enabled

future scenarios to be modeled in AVGWLF to predict future loads

in the wetlands due to various changes in the watershed.

See Sumner et al. 2010 for further details on development of the

model.



4.5 Conclusion: Next Steps

The Supplement is not intended to be inclusive of all the potential ways to incorporate wetlands

into the watershed planning process. The approaches discussed, however, are now successfully

being used to target specific wetlands in watersheds to address water quality, water quantity, and

habitat issues—problems that plague most of the nation’s watersheds.

Future editions of this Supplement might include additional case studies that show how wetland

sites identified through assessment processes like those discussed in this chapter proceeded to the

planning and implementation phases of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation projects

and how each of those projects was designed in keeping with watershed plan goals. Below are

two examples that provide a glimpse of such efforts.

Example 1

The Gun River Greenbelt and Wetland Restoration Initiative (GRWI) partnered with the Allegan

and Barry County NRCS Field Offices and the USFWS to implement a “door to door” wetland

restoration program targeted at properties identified as having high wetland restoration

potential based on use of the LLWFA and other analyses. The “door to door” campaign targets

restoration sites within the watershed that would have a high potential to reduce nutrients and

sediment within the watershed. Once those land parcels were identified, a direct mailing effort

was used to inform the respective landowners of wetland restoration opportunities and funding

avenues for the identified properties. The wetland restoration program successfully funded

three wetland restorations sites within the Gun River watershed through the NRCS Wetland

Reserve Program The three projects were able to access conservation easement funding for local

producers and are currently (November 2011) in the easement writing stage of implementation.

Construction of the three projects is slated to begin in the fall of 2012. The restorations include

over 176 acres of conventional farmland being converted to their historic wetlands within the

Gun River watershed. Those restorations once completed will have a dramatic impact on

sediment reductions in the watershed as well address the flashiness of the river system.

Source: MDEQ 2011.

Example 2

The conservation districts in the Black River watershed in Allegan and Van Buren counties have

worked to develop a wetland restoration prioritization process meant to inform decision making.

Specifically, the Van Buren County Conservation District in Michigan partnered with the

Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy (SWMLC) for several wetland protection projects through

both donation and purchase of development rights. One of the parcels donated to the SWMLC

contained approximately 30 acres of lost wetland. According to the LLWFA, there were historic

wetlands on the site that scored “high” for streamflow maintenance, nutrient transformation,

and wildlife habitat. There were also lost wetlands that scored “medium” for surface water

detention, sediment retention, and shoreline stabilization.

The District used the significance of the functions to justify its request for funding and local in-

kind match from the MDEQ, Ducks Unlimited, and the USFWS. All three partners committed

funds and/or technical assistance on the restoration. The group is currently in the preliminary

design phase. USFWS and MDEQ will likely fund a majority of the construction through the CWA

section 319 grant the District received. A neighboring landowner heard about the project and

decided he would like to donate his development rights and have the restoration expanded onto

his property.

Source: Fuller 2005.



Further, we have established an ongoing process to identify successful wetland restoration

projects that have resulted in water quality/quantity improvements. We will post links to these

selected projects, along with the Supplement, on the Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds web site

when they are finalized (http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/pubs.html). Although some

examples may not be part of a watershed plan, they show how wetland restoration can begin to

address water quality/quantity goals that are likely to be part of a watershed group’s watershed

management plan.

EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement References


References

Bedford, B.L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for

freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6: 57-68.

Bedford, B.L. 1999. Cumulative Effects on Wetland Landscapes: Links to Wetland Restoration

in the United States and Southern Canada. Wetlands 19(4). Society of Wetland Scientists,

Madison, Wisconsin. Published by Springer Publishing Company, New York, New York.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-

DE4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Brinson, M.M., and R. Rheinhardt. 1996. The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional

Assessment and Mitigation. Ecological Applications. 6:6976.

Bulluck, J. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Division of Natural

Heritage. 2011, October 18. Telephone call with Jan McGoldrick of PG Environmental,

LLC, to discuss VDCR’s plans for expanding the wetland catalog statewide.

Cappiella, K., A. Kitchell, and T. Schueler. 2006. Using Local Watershed Plans to Protect

Wetlands. Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.

Clinton River Watershed Council. N.d. What is the Clinton River Watershed? <http://www.

crwc.org/watershed/whatiscrwc.html >. Accessed October 26, 2011. Clinton River

Watershed Council, Rochester Hills, Michigan.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS79/31. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Craft, C., and A. Hopple. 2011. Reference Wetlands for Assessing Wetland Mitigation Projects:

When is One Not Enough? SWS Research Brief. No. 20110001. Society of Wetland

Scientists. <http://www.sws.org/ResearchBrief/Craft_2011-0001.pdf >. Accessed

August 30, 2011.

CRCPO (Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization). N.d. The Cuyahoga River

Watershed & Area of Concern. < http://www.cuyahogariverrap.org/CRW_AOC.html >

Accessed October 27 2011. Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization,

Cleveland, Ohio.

Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.



ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2004a. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for

Compensatory Mitigation and Performance Standards. Prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency by the Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

Evans, B.M., D. Lehning and K. Corradini. 2008. AVGWLV Version 7.1: User’s Manual. Penn

State Institutes of Energy and the Environment. The Pennsylvania State University.

<http://www.avgwlf.psu.edu/Downloads/AVGWLFManual.pdf> . Accessed August 26,

2011.

Fennessy, M.S., J.J. Mack, E. Deimeke, M.T. Sullivan, J. Bishop, M. Cohen, M. Micacchion,

and M. Knapp. 2007. Assessment of Wetlands in the Cuyahoga River Watershed of

Northeast Ohio. Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/20074. Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus,

Ohio.

Fizzell, C., and R. Zbiciak. n.d. Clinton River Area of Concern – Wetland Restoration

Prioritization. PowerPoint presentation. < http://www.wm-alliance.org/

documents/publications/WMSI_Restoration_Prioritization_Model_2.pdf >. Accessed

date. Michigan Natural Features Inventory and Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality, Lansing, Michigan.

Fizzell, C.A. 2007. Assessing Cumulative loss of Wetland Functions in the Paw Paw Watershed

Using Enhanced National Wetlands Inventory Data. <http://www.swmpc.org/downloads

/pprw_WetlandFunctionAssmnt.pdf>. Accessed May 2011. Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality, Land and Water Management Division, Wetlands, Lakes and

Streams Unit, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

FTC&H (Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Inc.) for Alleghan Conservation District. 2004.

Gun River Watershed Management Plan. Alleghan Conservation District, Alleghan,

Michigan. < http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/ess-nps-wmp-gun-

river_208913_7.pdf >. Accessed December 1, 2011.

Fuller, E. 2005 (updated 2009). Black River Watershed Management Plan. Van Buren

Conservation District, Paw Paw, Michigan. < http://vbco.org/downloads/black_river_

watershed_management_plan_102009_no_appendices_1.pdf >. Accessed December 1,

2011.

Gamble, D., E. Grody, J. Undercoffer, J. J. Mack, and M. Micacchion. 2007. An ecological and

functional assessment of urban wetlands in central Ohio. Volume 2: morphometric

surveys, depth–area–volume relationships and flood storage function. Ohio EPA

Technical Report WET/2007-3B. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland

Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.



GLIN (Great Lakes Information Network). 2005. Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes

Region. Web page. < http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/pollution/aoc.html >. Accessed

August 30, 2011.

Gray, A., R.P. Brooks, D.H. Wardrop, and J.K. Perot. n.d. Pennsylvania’s Adopt–a–Wetland

Program Wetland Education and Monitoring Module: Student Manual. < http://www.

wetlands.psu.edu/products/manual/manual.pdf >. Accessed August 17, 2011. Penn State

Cooperative Wetlands Center (now called Riparia), University Park, Pennsylvania.

Gwin, S., M.E. Kentula and P. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation

through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19: 477-489.

Haith, D.A. Shoemaker, L.L., 1987. Generalized watershed-loading functions for stream flow

nutrients. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(3), 471-478.

IWR (Institute for Water Resources). 2007. Summary – Do’s and Don’ts for Writing

Performance Standards. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources,

Alexandria, Virginia.

IWWR (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration). 2003. An Introduction and User’s

Guide to Wetland Restoration, enhancement, and creation. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Washington, D.C.

Johnson, J. Bradley. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic wetland profiling. An approach to landscape and

cumulative impacts analysis. EPA/620/R-05/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington D.C.

Kentula, M.E. 2002. Wetland Restoration and Creation. In Restoration, Creation, and Recovery

of Wetlands: National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. U.S. Geological Survey

Water Supply Paper 2425. < http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/restoration.html >.

Accessed June 20, 2011.

Kusler, J. 2004. Common Questions: Definition of the Terms Wetland “Function” and “Value.”

Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc., Berne, New York.

Mack, J., S. Fennessy, M. Micacchion, and D. Porej. 2004. Standardized monitoring protocols,

data analysis and reporting requirements for mitigation wetlands in Ohio, v. 1.0. Ohio

EPA Technical Report WET/20046. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of

Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio.

McIver, J., and L. Starr. 2001. Restoration of Degraded Lands in the Interior Columbia River

Basin: Passive vs. Active Approaches. Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 153.



MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). 2008. Land and Water Management

Division, Wetland, Lakes, and Streams Unit. Statewide Wetland Restoration Analysis,

(MI_RestorationAnalysis.shp). Unpublished material, vector data. Contact Chad Fizzell.

MDEQ. 2011. Landscape Level Wetland Functional Assessment Report, Version 1, Methodology

Report. EPA 2008 Wetland Grant Proposal Report CD 00E39601. Michigan Department

of Environmental Quality, Lansing, Michigan.

Micacchion, M. Midwest Biodiversity Institute. 2011, November 28. Email correspondence with

Jan McGoldrick, PG Environmental, LLC, regarding examples of wetland functions

improving water quality.

Micacchion, M. Midwest Biodiversity Institute. 2012, February 23. Email correspondence with

Jan McGoldrick, PG Environmental, LLC, regarding practical distinctions between the

use of level 2 and 3 wetland monitoring methods.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New

York.

NCSU (North Carolina State University) Water Quality Group. n.d. “Types of Wetlands and

Their Roles in the Watershed” and “Functions of Wetlands (Processes)” Watersheds: A

Decision Support System for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.

< http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/types3.html > and

< http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/function.html >. North Carolina

State University Water Quality Group, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Novitzki, R.P., R.D. Smith, and J.D. Fretwell. 1997. Restoration, Creation, and Recovery of

Wetlands Wetland Functions, Values, and Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey Water

Supply Paper 2425. < http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/functions.html >. Reston,

Virginia.

NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean

Water Act. National Research Council, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on

Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses,

Washington, D.C.

Ossinger, M. 2008. Success Standards for Wetland Mitigation Projects – A Guideline.

Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office, Olympia,

Washington.

Pardue, J. 2007. Mitigating Storm Surge with Vegetation. Louisiana Coastal Area Science Board

Presentation, September 2009, Columbia, Missouri.

Schools, E. n.d. Methodology Report for the Clinton River Area of Concern Wetland Restoration

Prioritization Project. Michigan State University Extension (MSUE), Michigan Natural

Features Inventory, Lansing, Michigan.



Schuyet, K., and L. Brander. 2004. The Economic Values of the World’s Wetland Resources.

World Wildlife Fund International, Gland, Switzerland, and Institute for Environmental

Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (with support from the Swiss

Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape).

Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.

Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State: Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science.

Ecology Publication #0506006. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and

Environmental Assistance Program, Olympia, Washington.

Smith, R.D., A.A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing

Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and

Functional Indices. Technical Report WRPDE9. U.S. Corps of Engineers, Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Steinitz, C. 1990. A Framework for Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects

(and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal 9(2):136143.

Sumner R. 2004. What does science say about a watershed approach to regulatory decision–

making. Presentation at National Symposium on Compensatory Mitigation and the

Watershed Approach. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.

<http://www.eli.org/program_areas/Events/watershed_symposium.cfm>. Accessed June

28, 2011.

Sumner, R., J. Schubauer-Berigan, T. Mulcahy, J. Minter, B. Dyson, C. Godfrey, and J. Blue.

2010. Alternative Futures Analysis of Farmington Bay Wetlands in the Great Salt Lake

Ecosystem. EPA/600/R10/032. Study report.

<http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10032/600r10032.pdf>. Accessed July 14, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National

Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sumner, R. 2011. Draft: Assessment Framework for Compensatory Mitigation in California: A

Watershed Approach. (Training Syllabus in support of the California Wetland Area

Protection Policy). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Washington.

SWMPC (Southwestern Michigan Planning Commission). 2008. Paw Paw River Watershed

Management Plan. Southwestern Michigan Planning Commission, Benton Harbor,

Michigan. < http://www.swmpc.org/pprw_mgmt_plan.asp >.

Thompson, A.L., and C.S. Luthin. 2010. Wetland Restoration Handbook for Wisconsin

Landowners. 2nd

ed. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated

Science Services, Madison, Wisconsin.

Tiner, R.W., H.C. Bergquist, J.Q. Swords, and B.J. McClain. 2001. Watershed-based Wetland

Characterization for Delaware’s Nanticoke River Watershed: A Preliminary Assessment



Report. National Wetlands Inventory report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast

Region, Hadley, Massachusetts.

Tiner, R.W. September 2003. Dichotomous Keys and Mapping Codes for Wetland Landscape

Position. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Project, Hadley,

Massachusetts.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). N.d. America’s Wetlands. Pamphlet. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,

Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841F00003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 2004. Wetlands Overview. Fact sheet. EPA843F04011a. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian

Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA841B05003. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 2008a. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters.

EPA 841B08002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,

D.C.

USEPA. 2008b. Wetland Functions and Values Module. Web page.

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/wetlands/right11.htm.>.

Accessed October 13, 2011.

USEPA. 2010. Wetlands––Wetland Types. Web page.

<http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/types_index.cfm>. Accessed June 30, 2011.

USEPA. 2011a. Clinton River Area of Concern. <http://epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/clintriv.html>.

Accessed August 11, 2011.

USEPA. 2011b. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs): Cuyahoga River. < http://www.epa.

gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga.html > Accessed October 27 2011.

USEPA. 2011c. Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds: Concepts, Assessments, and

Management Approaches. Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 2011d. Monitoring and Assessment. Web page. < http://water.epa.gov/grants

_funding/wetlands/monitoring.cfm>. Accessed August 30, 2011.



USEPA. 2012. Great Lakes Basin Evaluation of Compensation Sites Report. January 24, 2012.

EPA Contract No. EP-R5-10-02. PG Environmental, LLC.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010, April. NWIPlus: Geospatial Database for

Watershed–level Functional Assessment. Fact sheet. < http://www.fws.gov/

northeast/wetlands/factsheets/NWIPlus_FactSheet.pdf >. Accessed June 2011.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). n.d. Wetlands Classification. < http://www.nbii.gov/portal/

server.pt/community/wetlands/1349/classification/7175 >. Accessed June 14, 2011.

UWM (University of Wisconsin–Madison). 2005. A Watershed Approach to Wetland Services:

Prioritizing Wetland Restoration in the Upper Rock River Basin, Wisconsin, USA.

University of Wisconsin–Madison, Water Resources Management Practicum 2004,

Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, Madison, Wisconsin.

Weber, J.T., and J.F. Bulluck. 2010. Methodology for Developing a Parcel–based Wetland

Restoration, Mitigation, and Conservation Catalog: A Virginia Pilot. Natural Heritage

Technical Report No. 1022. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,

Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia.

White, D., and S. Fennessy. 2005. Modeling the Suitability of Wetland Restoration Potential at

the Watershed Scale. Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 359377.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.

Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Wright, T., J. Tomlinson, T. Schueler, K. Cappiella, A. Kitchell, and D. Hirschman. 2006. Direct

and Indirect Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality. Prepared by the Center for

Watershed Protection for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.

Zedler, J. 2006. Taking a Watershed Approach in the Absence of a Watershed Plan. Presentation

at Fifth Stakeholder’s Forum of Federal Wetlands Mitigation. Environmental Law

Institute, Washington, D.C.

epa region 5 wetlands supplement: incorporating wetlands into watershed...

Documents